-
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine Sep 2023Static stretching can increase the range of motion of a joint. Muscle-tendon unit stiffness (MTS) is potentially one of the main factors that influences the change in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Static stretching can increase the range of motion of a joint. Muscle-tendon unit stiffness (MTS) is potentially one of the main factors that influences the change in the range of motion after static stretching. However, to date, the effects of acute and long-term static stretching on MTS are not well understood. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of acute and long-term static stretching training on MTS, in young healthy participants. PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO published before January 6, 2023, were searched and finally, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. Main meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model and subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of sex (male vs. mixed sex and female) and muscle (hamstrings vs. plantar flexors) were also performed. Furthermore, a meta-regression was conducted to examine the effect of total stretching duration on MTS. For acute static stretching, the result of the meta-analysis showed a moderate decrease in MTS (effect size = -0.772, Z = -2.374, 95% confidence interval = -1.409 - -0.325, p = 0.018, I = 79.098). For long-term static stretching, there is no significant change in MTS (effect size = -0.608, Z = -1.761, 95% CI = -1.284 - 0.069, p = 0.078, I = 83.061). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between sex (long-term, p = 0.209) or muscle (acute, p =0.295; long-term, p = 0.427). Moreover, there was a significant relationship between total stretching duration and MTS in acute static stretching (p = 0.011, R2 = 0.28), but not in long-term stretching (p = 0.085, R < 0.01). Whilst MTS decreased after acute static stretching, only a tendency of a decrease was seen after long-term stretching.
Topics: Female; Male; Humans; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Tendons; Muscles; Hamstring Muscles
PubMed: 37711702
DOI: 10.52082/jssm.2023.465 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Jul 2020Osteoarthritis (OA) is the commonest form of inflammatory joint disease. Unfortunately, to date, there is no appropriate treatment for OA. Boswellia serrata was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the commonest form of inflammatory joint disease. Unfortunately, to date, there is no appropriate treatment for OA. Boswellia serrata was considered as a potent anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic and analgesic agent that may be a drug for OA.
METHODS
In this meta-analysis, data from randomized controlled trials were obtained to assess the effects of Boswellia or its extract versus placebo or western medicine in patients with OA. The primary outcomes included visual analogue score (VAS), WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC function and lequesne index.
RESULT
Seven trials involving 545 patients were included. Compared with the control group, Boswellia and its extract may relieve the pain [VAS: (WMD -8.33; 95% CI -11.19, - 5.46; P<0.00001); WOMAC pain: (WMD -14.22; 95% CI -22.34, - 6.09; P = 0. 0006)] and stiffness [WOMAC stiffness: (WMD -10.04; 95% CI -15.86, - 4.22; P = 0. 0007)], and improve the joint's function [WOMAC function: (WMD -10.75; 95% CI -15.06, - 6.43; P<0. 00001); lequesne index: (WMD -2.27; 95% CI -3.08, - 1.45; P<0. 00001)].
CONCLUSION
Based on current evidence, Boswellia and its extract may be an effective and safe treatment option for patient with OA, and the recommended duration of treatment with Boswellia and its extract is at least 4 weeks.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Boswellia; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires; Triterpenes
PubMed: 32680575
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-020-02985-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.
Topics: Baclofen; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Casts, Surgical; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Head-Down Tilt; Humans; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Muscle Spasticity; Neuromuscular Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29165784
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008929.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2019Acute anterior shoulder dislocation, which is the most common type of dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more...
BACKGROUND
Acute anterior shoulder dislocation, which is the most common type of dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation or recurrent instability (e.g. subluxation), especially in active young adults. After closed reduction, most of these injuries are treated with immobilisation of the injured arm in a sling or brace for a few weeks, followed by exercises. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and last updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. These might include immobilisation, rehabilitative interventions or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. Date of last search: May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing conservative interventions with no treatment, a different intervention or a variant of the intervention (e.g. a different duration) for treating people after closed reduction of a primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. Inclusion was regardless of age, sex or mechanism of injury. Primary outcomes were re-dislocation, patient-reported shoulder instability measures and return to pre-injury activities. Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction, health-related quality of life, any instability and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled results of comparable groups of studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the quality of the evidence with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (six randomised controlled trials and one quasi-randomised controlled trial) with 704 participants; three of these trials (234 participants) are new to this update. The mean age across the trials was 29 years (range 12 to 90 years), and 82% of the participants were male. All trials compared immobilisation in external rotation (with or without an additional abduction component) versus internal rotation (the traditional method) following closed reduction. No trial evaluated any other interventions or comparisons, such as rehabilitation. All trials provided data for a follow-up of one year or longer; the commonest length was two years or longer.All trials were at some risk of bias, commonly performance and detection biases given the lack of blinding. Two trials were at high risk of selection bias and some trials were affected by attrition bias for some outcomes. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes.We are uncertain whether immobilisation in external rotation makes a difference to the risk of re-dislocation after 12 months' or longer follow-up compared with immobilisation in internal rotation (55/245 versus 73/243; risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.19; 488 participants; 6 studies; I² = 61%; very low certainty evidence). In a moderate-risk population with an illustrative risk of 312 per 1000 people experiencing a dislocation in the internal rotation group, this equates to 103 fewer (95% CI 194 fewer to 60 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation. Thus this result covers the possibility of a benefit for each intervention.Individually, the four studies (380 participants) reporting on validated patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder instability at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up found no evidence of a clinically important difference between the two interventions.We are uncertain of the relative effects of the two methods of immobilisation on resumption of pre-injury activities or sports. One study (169 participants) found no evidence of a difference between interventions in the return to pre-injury activity of the affected arm. Two studies (135 participants) found greater return to sports in the external rotation group in a subgroup of participants who had sustained their injury during sports activities.None of the trials reported on participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life.We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the two interventions in the number of participants experiencing instability, defined as either re-dislocation or subluxation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14; 395 participants, 3 studies; very low certainty evidence).Data on adverse events were collected only in an ad hoc way in the seven studies. Reported "transient and resolved adverse events" were nine cases of shoulder stiffness or rigidity in the external rotation group and two cases of axillary rash in the internal rotation group. There were three "important" adverse events: hyperaesthesia and moderate hand pain; eighth cervical dermatome paraesthesia; and major movement restriction between 6 and 12 months. It was unclear to what extent these three events could be attributed to the treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence from randomised trials is limited to that comparing immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.Considering that there are several unpublished and ongoing trials evaluating immobilisation in external versus internal rotation, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, evaluation of other interventions, including rehabilitation, is warranted. There is a need for sufficiently large, good-quality, well-reported randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up. Future research should aim to determine the optimal immobilisation duration, precise indications for immobilisation, optimal rehabilitation interventions, and the acceptability of these different interventions.
Topics: Adult; Conservative Treatment; Female; Humans; Immobilization; Joint Instability; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shoulder Dislocation
PubMed: 31074847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004962.pub4 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021A number of researches indicated preoperative functional exercise may improve the rehabilitation progress. This study aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A number of researches indicated preoperative functional exercise may improve the rehabilitation progress. This study aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative exercise intervention on rehabilitation before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by literature retrieval and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Embase, Cochrane library, PubMed, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov were selected as the search database platforms. All published English articles related to preoperative exercise of TKA from January 2000 to January 2021 were searched with the following keyword strategy: ("preoperative functional exercise" or "prehabilitation exercise") AND ("TKA" or "total knee arthroplasty"). After literature screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the risk of bias and quality of the included articles were evaluated. RevMan 5.3.5 software was used for analysis to obtain the forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 911 articles were preliminarily searched in this study, and 12 were finally included for the quantitative analysis, comprising 889 patients; the result showed after intervention, the experimental group patients had wider ROM flexion than the control group patients [mean difference (MD) =4.28; 95% CI: 2.28 to 6.28; Z=4.19; P<0.0001]; the experimental group patients were with higher quadriceps strength value than the control group (MD =1.86, 95% CI: 0.58-3.15; Z=2.84, P=0.005); the WOMAC score (The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), were higher for the experimental group patients (MD =-10.59; 95% CI: -11.88 to -9.29; Z=16.03; P<0.00001); and the standing and walking test index are higher (MD =-1.29, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.67; Z=4.08; P<0.001); the quality of life score were higher too for the experimental group patients (MD =1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.20; Z=6.08; P<0.00001).
DISCUSSION
Preoperative exercise intervention before TKA can improve knee flexion and flexibility, reduce inflammatory pain and stiffness, improve muscle strength, improve joint function, and thus improve the quality of life of patients.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Preoperative Exercise; Quality of Life; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 34763461
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2670 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial....
BACKGROUND
In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Two researchers (YQX and CG) performed literature screening, baseline data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis of RCTs from the retrieved studies. Based on the magnitude of heterogeneity , random-effects or fixed-effects models were selected for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 24 RCTs comprising 1344 patients with OA who met the inclusion criteria, with the main types of morbidity being knee osteoarthritis (KOA), hip osteoarthritis (HOA), ankle osteoarthritis (AOA), and temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA). Our results indicate that PRP injections were effective in improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores in patients with KOA, HOA, and AOA compared to controls (AOA, MD = -1.15, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.56], = 40%, < 0.05; KOA, MD = -1.03, CI = 95% [-1.16, -0.9], = 87%, < 0.05; TMJOA, MD = -1.35, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.97], = 92%, < 0.05) but showed no significant efficacy in patients with HOA (MD = -0.27, CI = 95% [-0.8, 0.26], = 56%, >0.05). Compared to controls, PRP injections were effective in improving Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), including the patient's pain symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and adhesion symptomatology, but not for that of sports function (KOOS-pain, MD = 2.77, CI = 95% [0, 5.53], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-symptoms, MD = 3.73, CI = 95% [0.76, 6.71], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-ADL, MD = 3.61, CI = 95% [0.79, 6.43], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-QOL, MD = 4.66, CI = 95% [0.98, 8.35], = 29%, < 0.05, KOOS-sport, MD = 0.48, CI = 95% [-3.02, 3.98], = 0%, > 0.05). PRP injections were effective in improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including pain, stiffness, and functional joint motion, in patients with OA compared with the control group (WOMAC-pain, MD = -1.08, CI = 95% [-1.62, -0.53], = 87%, < 0.05; WOMAC-stiffness, MD = -1.17, CI = 88% [-1.72, -0.63], = 87%, < 0.05; WOMAC-function, MD = -1.12, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.58], = 87%, < 0.05). In addition, subgroup analysis showed that leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP injections were more effective than leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP injections in improving pain symptoms in patients with OA (VAS, LR-PRP, MD = -0.81, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.03], = 83%, = 0.06 > 0.05; LP-PRP, MD = -1.62, CI = 95% [-2.36, -0.88], = 92%, < 0.05). A subgroup analysis based on injection sites showed that no statistical difference in efficacy between intra-articular (IA) combined with intra-osseous (IO) simultaneous PRP injections. IA PRP injections only improved VAS pain scores in patients with OA (IA+IO PRP injections, MD = -0.74, CI =95% [-1.29, -0.18], = 61%, < 0.05; IA PRP injections, MD = -1.43, CI = 95% [-2.18, -0.68], = 87%, < 0.05, test for subgroup differences, > 0.05, = 52.7%).
CONCLUSION
PRP injection therapy can safely and effectively improve functional activity in patients with OA and produce positive analgesic effects in patients with KOA, TMJOA, and AOA. However, PRP injection therapy did not significantly reduce pain symptoms in patients with HOA. In addition, the analgesic effect of LP-PRP was greater than that of LR-PRP.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022362066.
PubMed: 37441691
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1204144 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2020Rigidity is one of the cardinal symptoms of Parkinson´s disease (PD). Present in up 89% of cases, it is typically assessed with clinical scales. However, these...
Rigidity is one of the cardinal symptoms of Parkinson´s disease (PD). Present in up 89% of cases, it is typically assessed with clinical scales. However, these instruments show limitations due to their subjectivity and poor intra- and inter-rater reliability. To compile all of the objective quantitative methods used to assess rigidity in PD and to study their validity and reliability, a systematic review was conducted using the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Studies from January 1975 to June 2019 were included, all of which were written in English. The Strengthening the Reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology Statement (STROBE) checklist for observational studies was used to assess the methodological rigor of the included studies. Thirty-six studies were included. Rigidity was quantitatively assessed in three ways, using servomotors, inertial sensors, and biomechanical and neurophysiological study of muscles. All methods showed good validity and reliability, good correlation with clinical scales, and were useful for detecting rigidity and studying its evolution. People with PD exhibit higher values in terms of objective muscle stiffness than healthy controls. Rigidity depends on the angular velocity and articular amplitude of the mobilization applied. There are objective, valid, and reliable methods that can be used to quantitatively assess rigidity in people with PD.
Topics: Electromyography; Humans; Joints; Movement; Muscle Rigidity; Muscles; Observational Studies as Topic; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 32041374
DOI: 10.3390/s20030880 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2021Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.
METHODS
All published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.
RESULTS
Included were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
IA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.
PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020181928 .
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34134679
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04308-3 -
Nutrients Oct 2021Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune condition characterized by symptoms of inflammation and pain in the joints. RA is estimated to have a worldwide...
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune condition characterized by symptoms of inflammation and pain in the joints. RA is estimated to have a worldwide prevalence of 0.5-1%, with a predominance in females. Diet may play an important role in the symptoms of RA; however, little is known about the effects of various diets. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the effect of dietary interventions, with or without omega-3 supplementation for the management of RA. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical trials investigating dietary interventions, with or without omega-3 supplementation to retrieve papers from inception to April 2021. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of dietary interventions in adults with RA were eligible for inclusion. Twenty studies with a total of 1063 participants were included. The most frequently reported outcomes were pain, duration of morning stiffness, joint tenderness, grip strength and inflammatory markers. Dietary interventions with an anti-inflammatory basis may be an effective way for adults with RA seeking complementary treatments, potentially leading to improvements in certain parameters. However, there is a need for longer duration studies that are well-designed and sufficiently powered to investigate the influence of diet on RA.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Diet; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34684507
DOI: 10.3390/nu13103506 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no cure for OA is known, and non-pharmacological modalities are recommended as first-line care. A positive effect of exercise in hip and knee OA has been documented, but the effect of exercise on hand OA remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand OA. Main outcomes are hand pain and hand function.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched six electronic databases up until September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise or comparing different exercise programmes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes consisted of both continuous (hand pain, physical function, finger joint stiffness and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportions of adverse events and withdrawals).
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies in the review. Most studies were free from selection and reporting bias, but one study was available only as a congress abstract. It was not possible to blind participants to treatment allocation, and although most studies reported blinded outcome assessors, some outcomes (pain, function, stiffness and quality of life) were self-reported. The results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias owing to unblinded participants and self-reported outcomes. Two studies with high drop-out rates may be vulnerable to attrition bias. We downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to low owing to potential detection bias (lack of blinding of participants on self-reported outcomes) and imprecision (studies were few, the number of participants was limited and confidence intervals were wide for the outcomes pain, function and joint stiffness). For quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, we further downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to very low because studies were very few and confidence intervals were very wide.Low-quality evidence from five trials (381 participants) indicated that exercise reduced hand pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.07) post intervention. The absolute reduction in pain for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 5% (1% to 9%) on a 0 to 10 point scale. Pain was estimated to be 3.9 points on this scale (0 = no pain) in the control group, and exercise reduced pain by 0.5 points (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise improved hand function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02) post intervention. The absolute improvement in function noted in the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 6% (0.4% worsening to 13% improvement). Function was estimated at 14.5 points on a 0 to 36 point scale (0 = no physical disability) in the control group, and exercise improved function by 2.2 points (95% CI -0.2 to 4.6; NNTB 9).One study (113 participants) evaluated quality of life, and the effect of exercise on quality of life is currently uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.32). The absolute improvement in quality of life for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 0.3% (4% worsening to 4% improvement). Quality of life was 50.4 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (100 = maximum quality of life) in the control group, and the mean score in the exercise group was 0.3 points higher (3.5 points lower to 4.1 points higher).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise reduced finger joint stiffness (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) post intervention. The absolute reduction in finger joint stiffness for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 7% (3% to 10%). Finger joint stiffness was estimated at 4.5 points on a 0 to 10 point scale (0 = no stiffness) in the control group, and exercise improved stiffness by 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; NNTB 7).Three studies reported intervention-related adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The few reported adverse events consisted of increased finger joint inflammation and hand pain. Low-quality evidence from the three studies showed an increased likelihood of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 4.55, 95% CI 0.53 to 39.31) and of withdrawals due to adverse events in the exercise group compared with the control group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 27.18), but the effect is uncertain and further research may change the estimates.Included studies did not measure radiographic joint structure changes. Two studies provided six-month follow-up data (220 participants), and one (102 participants) provided 12-month follow-up data. The positive effect of exercise on pain, function and joint stiffness was not sustained at medium- and long-term follow-up.The exercise intervention varied largely in terms of dosage, content and number of supervised sessions. Participants were instructed to exercise two to three times a week in four studies, daily in two studies and three to four times daily in another study. Exercise interventions in all seven studies aimed to improve muscle strength and joint stability or function, but the numbers and types of exercises varied largely across studies. Four studies reported adherence to the exercise programme; in three studies, this was self-reported. Self-reported adherence to the recommended frequency of exercise sessions ranged between 78% and 94%. In the fourth study, 67% fulfilled at least 16 of the 18 scheduled exercise sessions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When we pooled results from five studies, we found low-quality evidence showing small beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function and finger joint stiffness. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated. One study reported quality of life, and the effect is uncertain. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and were not severe.
Topics: Aged; Arthralgia; Exercise Therapy; Female; Finger Joint; Hand Joints; Hand Strength; Humans; Male; Osteoarthritis; Pain Measurement; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Report
PubMed: 28141914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010388.pub2