-
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Dec 2021The aim of the present systematic review meta-analysis is METHODS: Systematic search was conducted in several databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present systematic review meta-analysis is METHODS: Systematic search was conducted in several databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus, to identify relevant research up to October 26, 2019. The identified studies were evaluated based on a modified Jadad scale. The intervention involves aromatherapy alone or in combination with essential oils. There was no restriction for the control group such as a placebo group or other common treatments. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2 (Bio stat, Englewood, NJ, USA) was used for meta-analysis. Cochran's Q and I2 tests were utilized.
RESULTS
The findings of our meta-analysis, which contained 13 trials (15 data), showed that dysmenorrhea decreased significantly in the group receiving aromatherapy with herbal compared with the control group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.795; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.922 to- 0.667; 17 trials O < 0.001); heterogeneity; I2 = 19.47%; = 0.236). In addition, four studies with insufficient data were not included in our meta-analysis. The results of all studies suggested that aromatherapy with herbal medicine group compared with control group is effective.
CONCLUSION
Aromatherapy with herbal medicine decreased dysmenorrhea. This treatment was particularly effective when aroma oil was combined with massage or when a mixture of aroma oil was used for the treatment of dysmenorrhea.
Topics: Aromatherapy; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Massage
PubMed: 34933391
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740210 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2018Primary dysmenorrhea, which is menstrual pain without pelvic pathology, is the most common gynecologic condition in women. Heat therapy has been used as a treatment. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Primary dysmenorrhea, which is menstrual pain without pelvic pathology, is the most common gynecologic condition in women. Heat therapy has been used as a treatment. We assessed the evidence on heat therapy as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhea. We searched 11 databases for studies published through July 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that addressed heat therapy for patients with primary dysmenorrhea were included. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs found favorable effects of heat therapy on menstrual pain compared with unheated placebo therapy. Three RCTs found favorable effects of heating pads on menstrual pain compared with analgesic medication (n = 274; SMD -0.72; 95% confidence interval -0.97 to -0.48; P < 0.001; two studies). One RCT showed beneficial effects of heat therapy on menstrual pain compared with no treatment (n = 132; MD -4.04 VAS; 95% CI -4.88 to -3.20; P < 0.001). However, these results are based on relatively few trials with small sample sizes. Our review provided suggestive evidence of the effectiveness of heat therapy for primary dysmenorrhea, but rigorous high-quality trials are still needed to provide robust evidence.
Topics: Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30389956
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34303-z -
Reproductive Health Jun 2022Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and practices by adolescent females of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are a severe public health issue. The current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and practices by adolescent females of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are a severe public health issue. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of the hygiene practices, menstrual problems with their associated factors, and the effectiveness of educational interventions on menstrual hygiene among adolescent school girls in India.
METHODS
PRISMA checklist and PICO guidelines were used to screen the scientific literature from 2011 to 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. Four themes were developed for data analysis, including hygiene practices, type of absorbent used, menstruation associated morbidities and interventions performed regarding menstruation. Eighty-four relevant studies were included and a meta-analysis, including subgroup analysis, was performed.
RESULTS
Pooled data revealed a statistically significant increase in sanitary pad usage "(SMD = 48.83, 95% CI = 41.38-57.62, p < 0.00001)" and increased perineum practices during menstruation "(SMD = 55.77, 95% CI = 44.27-70.26, p < 0.00001)". Results also reported that most prevalent disorders are dysmenorrhea "(SMD = 60.24, 95% CI = 50.41-70.06, p < 0.0001)", Pre-menstrual symptoms "(SMD = 62.67, 95% CI = 46.83-78.50, p < 0.00001)", Oligomenorrhea "(SMD = 23.57, CI = 18.05-29.10, p < 0.00001), Menorrhagia "(SMD = 25.67, CI = 3.86-47.47, p < 0.00001)", PCOS "(SMD = 5.50, CI = 0.60-10.40, p < 0.00001)", and Polymenorrhea "(SMD = 4.90, CI = 1.87-12.81, p < 0.0001)". A statistically significant improvement in knowledge "(SMD = 2.06, 95% CI = 0.75-3.36, p < 0.00001)" and practice "(SMD = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.13-2.65, p < 0.00001)" on menstruation was observed. Infections of the reproductive system and their repercussions can be avoided with better awareness and safe menstruation practices.
CONCLUSIONS
Learning about menstrual hygiene and health is essential for adolescent girls' health education to continue working and maintaining hygienic habits. Infections of the reproductive system and their repercussions can be avoided with better awareness and safe menstruation practices.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Hygiene; India; Menstrual Hygiene Products; Menstruation; Schools
PubMed: 35739585
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01453-3 -
BMC Complementary and Alternative... Jan 2019Menstrual pain is very common amongst young women. Despite the significant impact that menstrual pain has on academic attendance and performance, social activities and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Menstrual pain is very common amongst young women. Despite the significant impact that menstrual pain has on academic attendance and performance, social activities and quality of life, most young women do not seek medical treatment but prefer to use self-care; commonly OTC analgesic medications and rest. Many women do not get significant pain relief from these methods, therefore other low cost, easy to learn self-care methods may be a valuable approach to management. This review and meta-analysis examines the evidence for participant lead self-care techniques.
METHODS
A search of Medline, PsychINFO, Google Scholar and CINAHL was carried out in September 2017.
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials including 2302 women were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Studies examined self-delivered acupressure, exercise and heat as interventions. Risk of bias was unclear for many domains. All interventions showed a reduction in menstrual pain symptoms; exercise (g = 2.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.35) showed the largest effect size, with heat (g = 0.73, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.40) and acupressure (g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03) showing more moderate effect sizes. Exercise (g = 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83) and heat (g = 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.87), were more effective than analgesics in reducing pain intensity, whereas acupressure was significantly less effective (g = - 0.76, 95% CI -1.37 to - 0.15).
CONCLUSION
Exercise showed large effects, while acupressure and heat showed moderate effects in reducing menstrual pain compared to no treatment. Both exercise and heat are potential alternatives to analgesic medication. However, difficulties in controlling for non-specific effects, along with potential for bias, may influence study findings.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Dysmenorrhea; Exercise; Female; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Life Style; Pain Management; Self Care
PubMed: 30654775
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2433-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used by people to treat a variety of pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS, as a sole treatment, for acute pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 December 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and AMED. We also checked the reference lists of included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (< 12 weeks) if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Trials were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. We excluded trials on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews. Also we excluded trials investigating the effect of TENS on pain during childbirth (labour), primary dysmenorrhoea or dental procedures. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal trial design were excluded. We did not restrict any articles based on language of publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and analyses of data. We extracted data on the following: types of participants and pain condition, trial design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. We contacted trial authors for additional information if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials in the original review (2009) and included no further trials in the first update (2011). An additional seven new trials met the inclusion criteria in this second update. In total, we included 19 RCTs involving 1346 participants at entry, with 11 trials awaiting classification either because the full text was unavailable or information in the full text failed to clarify eligibility. We excluded most trials because TENS was given in combination with another treatment as part of the formal study design or TENS was not delivered using appropriate TENS technique. The types of acute pain included in this Cochrane Review were procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions and rib fractures. We pooled data for pain intensity for six trials (seven comparisons) comparing TENS with placebo but the I(2) statistic suggested substantial heterogeneity. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 100 mm) was -24.62 mm (95% CI -31.79 to -17.46) in favour of TENS. Data for the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in pain was pooled for four trials (seven comparisons) and relative risk was 3.91 (95% CI 2.42 to 6.32) in favour of TENS over placebo. We pooled data for pain intensity from five trials (seven comparisons) but the I(2) statistic suggested considerable heterogeneity. MD was -19.05 mm (95% CI -27.30 to -10.79) in favour of TENS using a random-effects model. It was not possible to pool other data. There was a high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions. Seven trials reported minor adverse effects, such as mild erythema and itching underneath the electrodes and participants disliking TENS sensation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane Review update includes seven new trials, in addition to the 12 trials reviewed in the first update in 2011. The analysis provides tentative evidence that TENS reduces pain intensity over and above that seen with placebo (no current) TENS when administered as a stand-alone treatment for acute pain in adults. The high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions makes definitive conclusions impossible. There was incomplete reporting of treatment in many reports making replication of trials impossible.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 26075732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006142.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26224322
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001751.pub3 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Feb 2021A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders....
The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial.
OBJECTIVES
We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders.
GLOBAL SUMMIT
The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus.
RESULTS
We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Topics: Asthma; Colic; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Manipulation, Spinal; Noncommunicable Diseases
PubMed: 33596925
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9 -
The Journal of International Medical... Jun 2020To assess the efficacy of herbal medicine (cinnamon/fennel/ginger) for treating primary dysmenorrhea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of herbal medicine (cinnamon/fennel/ginger) for treating primary dysmenorrhea.
METHODS
Relevant studies were searched in multiple databases. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect indicator for measurement data, and each effect size was given estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Nine studies with 647 patients were selected. Compared with the results in the control group, pain intensity was significantly relieved in the trial group when assessed by the intervention (cinnamon placebo: WMD = 1.815, 95% CI = 1.330-2.301; fennel placebo: WMD = 0.528, 95% CI = 0.119-6.829; ginger placebo: WMD = 2.902, 95% CI = 2.039-3.765), observation period (one cycle: WMD = 2.061, 95% CI = 0.815-3.307; one cycles: WMD = 1.831, 95% CI = 0.973-2.690), and study quality (high quality: WMD = 2.224, 95% CI = 1.488-2.960). Pain duration was significantly shorter in the trial group (cinnamon placebo: WMD = 16.200, 95% CI = 15.271-17.129). No publication bias was observed for either outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
For primary dysmenorrhea, cinnamon/fennel/ginger effectively reduced pain intensity, and cinnamon shortened the duration of pain. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Cinnamomum zeylanicum; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Foeniculum; Zingiber officinale; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32603204
DOI: 10.1177/0300060520936179 -
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2019The incidence and severity of primary dysmenorrhea are influenced by various factors. The aim of the present study was to review nutritional factors influencing primary...
BACKGROUND
The incidence and severity of primary dysmenorrhea are influenced by various factors. The aim of the present study was to review nutritional factors influencing primary dysmenorrhea.
METHODS
Academic databases including Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed (including Medline) were searched using keywords of nutrition, diet, and primary dysmenorrhea. In this study, observational studies that were published in English from 1990 to April 2018, which focused on nutritional factors affecting primary dysmenorrhea, were selected. The evaluation of studies was performed using a modified STROBE checklist with 10 items.
RESULTS
Out of 5,814 retrieved studies, 38 articles met inclusion criteria and were included for final data synthesis. The increased consumption of fruits and vegetables as the sources of vitamins and minerals, as well as fish and milk and dairy products have positive associations with less menstrual pain. Inconsistent results were reported on the consumption of other nutritional groups. Studies showed negative associations of meal skipping and following diet to lose weight with severity of dysmenorrhea.
CONCLUSION
A few studies showed inconclusive findings due to methodological heterogeneities for assessing nutritional habits and different methods of measuring dysmenorrhea pain. Therefore, further analysis and future interventional studies with stronger methodologies are required.
Topics: Animals; Diet; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Fishes; Fruit; Humans; MEDLINE; Milk; Minerals; Nutritional Status; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain Measurement; Vegetables; Vitamins
PubMed: 30630172
DOI: 10.1159/000495408 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.
METHODS
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Exercise; Exercise Movement Techniques; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Myalgia; Pain Measurement; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28087891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub2