-
Occupational and Environmental Medicine Jan 2016The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial.... (Review)
Review
The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.
Topics: Ergonomics; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Health Services; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Upper Extremity; Work; Workplace
PubMed: 26552695
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2015-102992 -
International Journal of Sports... 2021Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been reported to have significant benefits on local skeletal muscle including increasing local muscle mass, strength, and...
BACKGROUND
Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been reported to have significant benefits on local skeletal muscle including increasing local muscle mass, strength, and endurance while exercising with lower resistance. As a result, patients unable to perform traditional resistance training may benefit from this technique. However, it is unclear what effects BFR may have on other body systems, such as the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. It is important to explore the systemic effects of BFR training to ensure it is safe for use in physical therapy.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the systemic effects of blood flow restriction training when combined with exercise intervention.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
Three literature searches were performed: June 2019, September 2019, and January 2020; using MedLine, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews and CINAHL Complete. Inclusion criteria included: at least one outcome measure addressing a cardiovascular, endocrinological, systemic or proximal musculoskeletal, or psychosocial outcome, use of clinically available blood flow restriction equipment, use of either resistance or aerobic training in combination with BFR, and use of quantitative measures. Exclusion criteria for articles included only measuring local or distal musculoskeletal changes due to BFR training, examining only passive BFR or ischemic preconditioning, articles not originating from a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, CEBM level of evidence less than two, or PEDro score less than four. Articles included in this review were analyzed with the CEBM levels of evidence hierarchy and PEDro scale.
RESULTS
Thirty-five articles were included in the review. PEDro scores ranged between 4 and 8, and had CEBM levels of evidence of 1 and 2. Common systems studied included cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and psychosocial. This review found positive or neutral effects of blood flow restriction training on cardiovascular, endocrinological, musculoskeletal, and psychosocial outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Although BFR prescription parameters and exercise interventions varied, the majority of included articles reported BFR training to produce favorable or non-detrimental effects to the cardiovascular, endocrine, and musculoskeletal systems. This review also found mixed effects on psychosocial outcomes when using BFR. Additionally, this review found no detrimental outcomes directly attributed to blood flow restriction training on the test subjects or outcomes tested. Thus, BFR training may be an effective intervention for patient populations that are unable to perform traditional exercise training with positive effects other than traditional distal muscle hypertrophy and strength and without significant drawbacks to the individual.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1b.
PubMed: 34386277
DOI: 10.26603/001c.25791 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jun 2024To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
One and Done? The Effectiveness of a Single Session of Physiotherapy Compared With Multiple Sessions to Reduce Pain and Improve Function and Quality of Life in Patients With a Musculoskeletal Disorder: A Systematic Review With Meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs).
DATA SOURCES
AMED, Cinahl, SportsDiscus, Medline, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKDs.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Six RCTs (n=2090) were included (conditions studied: osteoporotic vertebral fracture, neck, knee, and shoulder pain). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed a significant pain improvement at 6 months in favor of multiple sessions compared with single session interventions (3 RCTs; n=1035; standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53; P=.02) but this significant difference in pain improvement was not observed at 3 months (4 RCTs; n=1312; SMD: 0.39; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.89; P=.13) and at 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1266; SMD: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.39; P=.82). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed no significant differences in function at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1583; SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.21; P=.56), 6 (4 RCTs; n=1538; SMD: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.23; P=.53) and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1528; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.25; P=.30) and QoL at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1779; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.17; P=.12), 6 (3 RCTs; n=1206; SMD: 0.03; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.14; P=.59), and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1729; SMD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.07; P=.58).
CONCLUSIONS
Low certainty meta-analyses found no clinically significant differences in pain, function, and QoL between single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKD management for the conditions studied. Future research should compare the cost-effectiveness of those different models of care.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pain Management; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37805175
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.017 -
Nutrients Jul 2022Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain (CMP) are diffuse suffering syndromes that interfere with normal activities. Controversy exists... (Review)
Review
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain (CMP) are diffuse suffering syndromes that interfere with normal activities. Controversy exists over the role of vitamin D in the treatment of these diseases. We carried out a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to establish whether vitamin D (25OHD) deficiency is more prevalent in CMP patients and to assess the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pain management in these individuals. We searched PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for RCTs published in English from 1 January 1990 to 10 July 2022. A total of 434 studies were accessed, of which 14 satisfied the eligibility criteria. In our review three studies, of which two had the best-quality evidence, a correlation between diffuse muscle pain and 25OHD deficiency was confirmed. Six studies, of which four had the best-quality evidence, demonstrated that appropriate supplementation may have beneficial effects in patients with established blood 25OHD deficiency. Eight studies, of which six had the best-quality evidence, demonstrated that 25OHD supplementation results in pain reduction. Our results suggest a possible role of vitamin D supplementation in alleviating the pain associated with FMS and CMP, especially in vitamin D-deficient individuals.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Pain; Dietary Supplements; Fibromyalgia; Musculoskeletal Pain; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency; Vitamins
PubMed: 35893864
DOI: 10.3390/nu14153010 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Oct 2022We conducted a systematic review in order to understand the relationship between imaging-visualised meniscus pathologies, hyaline cartilage, joint replacement and pain... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review in order to understand the relationship between imaging-visualised meniscus pathologies, hyaline cartilage, joint replacement and pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA).
DESIGN
A search of the Medline, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane library databases was performed for original publications reporting association between imaging-detected meniscal pathology (extrusion or tear/damage) and longitudinal and cross-sectional assessments of hyaline articular cartilage loss [assessed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], incident joint replacement and pain (longitudinal and cross-sectional) in knee OA. Each association was qualitatively characterised by a synthesis of data from each analysis, based upon study design and quality scoring (including risk of bias assessment and adequacy of covariate adjustment using Cochrane recommended methodology).
RESULTS
In total 4,878 abstracts were screened and 82 publications were included (comprising 72 longitudinal analyses and 49 cross-sectional). Using high quality, well-adjusted data, meniscal extrusion and meniscal tear/damage were associated with longitudinal progression of cartilage loss, cross-sectional cartilage loss severity and joint replacement, independently of age, sex and body mass index (BMI). Medial and lateral meniscal tears were associated with cartilage loss when they occurred in the body and posterior horns, but not the anterior horns. There was a lack of high quality, well-adjusted meniscal pathology and pain publications and no clear independent association between meniscal extrusion or tear/damage with pain severity, progression in pain or incident frequent knee symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Meniscal features have strong associations with cartilage loss and joint replacement in knee OA, but weak associations with knee pain. Systematic review PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42020210910.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement; Cartilage, Articular; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Knee Joint; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Menisci, Tibial; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain
PubMed: 35963512
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.002 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body... (Review)
Review
Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body areas in relation to healthcare professions. The underlying question is, worldwide, whether there are areas that are more exposed depending on the occupation or whether there are common areas that are highly exposed to MSDs. This issue has been extended to risk factors and responses to reduce MSDs. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2022. Google scholar and Science Direct databases were scanned to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed, critically appraised, and extracted data from these studies. Overall and body area prevalence, risk factors, and responses to MSDs were synthetized by occupational activity. Among the 21,766 records identified, 36 covering six healthcare professions were included. The lower back, neck, shoulder and hand/wrist were the most exposed areas for all healthcare professionals. Surgeons and dentists presented the highest prevalence of lower back (>60%), shoulder and upper extremity (35-55%) MSDs. The highest prevalence of MSDs in the lower limbs was found for nurses (>25%). The main causes reported for all healthcare professionals were maintenance and repetition of awkward postures, and the main responses were to modify these postures. Trends by continent seem to emerge regarding the prevalence of MSDs by healthcare profession. Africa and Europe showed prevalence three times higher than Asia and America for lower back MSDs among physiotherapists. African and Asian nurses presented rates three times higher for elbow MSDs than Oceanians. It becomes necessary to objectively evaluate postures and their level of risk using ergonomic tools, as well as to adapt the work environment to reduce exposure to MSDs with regard to the specificities of each profession.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Health Personnel; Ergonomics; Risk Factors; Delivery of Health Care; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 36613163
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010841 -
Journal of Physiotherapy Jul 2015Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment? (Review)
Review
QUESTION
Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment?
DESIGN
Systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
PARTICIPANTS
People with musculoskeletal disorders.
INTERVENTIONS
Massage therapy (manual manipulation of the soft tissues) as a stand-alone intervention.
OUTCOME
The primary outcomes were pain and function.
RESULTS
The 26 eligible randomised trials involved 2565 participants. The mean sample size was 95 participants (range 16 to 579) per study; 10 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias. Overall, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage reduces pain in the short term compared to no treatment in people with shoulder pain and osteoarthritis of the knee, but not in those with low back pain or neck pain. Furthermore, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage improves function in the short term compared to no treatment in people with low back pain, knee arthritis or shoulder pain. Low-to-very-low-level evidence from single studies indicated no clear benefits of massage over acupuncture, joint mobilisation, manipulation or relaxation therapy in people with fibromyalgia, low back pain and general musculoskeletal pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Massage therapy, as a stand-alone treatment, reduces pain and improves function compared to no treatment in some musculoskeletal conditions. When massage is compared to another active treatment, no clear benefit was evident.
Topics: Humans; Massage; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26093806
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2015.05.018 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Dec 2022There has been expanding use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the management of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There has been expanding use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the management of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries.
PURPOSE
To determine if there are any recent studies that show any clear benefits regarding the use of PRP in the management of soft tissue injuries.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Group Specialised Register databases were queried for randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with a non-PRP/placebo in participants >18 years of age with musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Exclusion criteria were non-soft tissue injuries and research published in journals with an impact factor <3.5. The main outcome measure analyzed across all injury types was the effect of PRP injections on pain and function.
RESULTS
Of the 853 studies initially screened, 32 were included in this review. There were 13 studies that investigated the effects of PRP on the management of rotator cuff injuries; 7 studies that investigated PRP in conjunction with arthroscopy found no significant difference between PRP groups and controls, while 5 of 6 studies that investigated nonsurgical management showed positive results for PRP. Eight studies investigated various tendinopathies; of these, 2 studies demonstrated positive results for PRP in Achilles and gluteal tendinopathy management. Six studies examined PRP in acute soft tissue injuries, with 2 of these reporting significant improvements in recovery time for hamstring injuries and 1 study showing positive results for ankle ligament injuries. Two studies looked at acute rupture of soft tissues and found no benefit to PRP use. Two studies investigated PRP injections for chronic plantar fasciitis, and both reported positive results in pain and function with PRP. Finally, 1 study evaluated the effects of PRP on meniscal injuries and reported significant improvement in the healing rate and a decreased need for surgical repair.
CONCLUSION
Currently, there is no research strongly advocating the use of PRP compared with traditional management strategies (rest, ice, corticosteroid injection, rehabilitation program). No long-term physiological benefits were reported to justify the invasive and costly technique of obtaining, producing, and implementing PRP.
PubMed: 36532150
DOI: 10.1177/23259671221140888 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2023Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative... (Review)
Review
Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative systematic review on the effect of teleworking on MSD. Following the PRISMA guidelines, several databases were searched using strings based on MSD and teleworking keywords. A two-step selection process was used to select relevant studies and a risk of bias assessment was made. Relevant variables were extracted from the articles included, with a focus on study design, population, definition of MSD, confounding factors, and main results. Of 205 studies identified, 25 were included in the final selection. Most studies used validated questionnaires to assess MSD, six considered confounders extensively, and seven had a control group. The most reported MSD were lower back and neck pain. Some studies found increased prevalence or pain intensity, while others did not. Risk of bias was high, with only 5 studies with low/probably low risk of bias. Conflicting results on the effect of teleworking on MSD were found, though an increase in MSD related to organizational and ergonomic factors seems to emerge. Future studies should focus on longitudinal approaches and consider ergonomic and work organization factors as well as socio-economic status.
Topics: Humans; Teleworking; Pandemics; COVID-19; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neck Pain; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 36981881
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20064973 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave...
BACKGROUND
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Health Personnel; Health Workforce; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Workplace
PubMed: 31334564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub2