-
RMD Open Mar 2022Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Targeted systemic therapies for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and comparative synthesis of short-term articular, dermatological, enthesitis and dactylitis outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); few have compared them head to head.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of all evaluated DMARDs for active PsA, with a special focus on biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) licensed for PsA or psoriasis.
METHODS
A systematic review identified RCTs and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared treatments on efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis) and safety (patients discontinuing due to adverse events (DAE)) outcomes. Subgroup analyses explored ACR response among patients with and without prior biological therapy exposure.
RESULTS
The NMA included 46 studies. Results indicate that some tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) may perform numerically, but not significantly, better than interleukin (IL) inhibitors on ACR response but perform worse on PASI response. Few significant differences between bDMARDs on ACR response were observed after subgrouping for prior bDMARD exposure. Guselkumab and IL-17A or IL-17RA inhibitors-brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab-were best on PASI response. These IL-inhibitors and adalimumab were similarly efficacious on resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. Infliximab with and without methotrexate, certolizumab 400 mg every 4 weeks and tildrakizumab showed the highest rates of DAE; abatacept, golimumab and the IL-inhibitors, the lowest.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite similar efficacy for ACR response, IL-17A and IL-17RA inhibitors and guselkumab offered preferential efficacy to anti-TNFs in skin manifestations, and for enthesitis and dactylitis, thereby supporting drug selection based on predominant clinical phenotype.
Topics: Abatacept; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Enthesopathy; Humans
PubMed: 35321874
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002074 -
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 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Feb 2023The incidence of Achilles tendinopathy has risen over the past decades. Insertional Achilles tendinopathy is characterised by tissue degeneration of the Achilles tendon... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The incidence of Achilles tendinopathy has risen over the past decades. Insertional Achilles tendinopathy is characterised by tissue degeneration of the Achilles tendon from its insertion in the calcaneus to up to 2 cm proximally. This clinical condition is accompanied by pain, loss of function and diminished exercise tolerance. Numerous conservative treatment modalities are available to participants with insertional Achilles tendinopathy, including eccentric exercises, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, laser therapy, cryotherapy, therapeutic ultrasound, and orthotics. Eccentric exercise and extracorporeal shockwave therapy may reduce pain in participants with non-calcified insertional Achilles tendinopathy. However, no specific treatment is recommended over another due to the low methodological quality of trials. Given the lack of standard or preferred non-surgical treatment and the potential risks of surgical treatment, there is an imminent need to reassess different non-surgical treatments based on the newest evidence. Thus, this systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the various non-surgical treatments for insertional Achilles tendinopathy.
METHODS
AMED EBSCOhost, CINAHL, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from 1992 to 14th October 2022, randomised controlled trials of adults with insertional Achilles tendinopathy investigating non-surgical treatments compared with each other or no treatment, placebo/sham control. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data. Random effects of network meta-analysis immediately after treatments were used to report comparative treatment effects. The surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities was calculated to assess the relative ranking of treatments.
RESULTS
Nine trials (total n = 464 participants) were included. This review recommended the combination of eccentric exercise and soft tissue therapy to manage insertional Achilles tendinopathy. With the highest SUCRA values of 84.8, and the best mean rank of 1.9, Eccentric exercise plus soft tissue treatment ranked as the most effective treatment for short-term pain.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first NMA of non-surgical treatment focusing on short-term pain control for IAT which eccentric exercise plus soft-tissue therapy was found to be the most effective treatment combination. However, the overall confidence in non-surgical treatments from all included trials was very low. No recommendation of the best treatment option can be made from this review.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Achilles Tendon; Network Meta-Analysis; Tendinopathy; Exercise Therapy; Pain; Treatment Outcome; Musculoskeletal Diseases
PubMed: 36750789
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06170-x -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2023Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone...
Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International...
PURPOSE
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.
METHODS
An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.
CONCLUSION
The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Cancellous Bone; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Absorptiometry, Photon; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoarthritis; Aging; Consensus; World Health Organization; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37393412
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06817-4 -
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 -
BioMed Research International 2020Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine).
METHOD
PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy.
RESULTS
Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound ( < 0.05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion ( < 0.05) but not with acupotomy surgery ( = 0.24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction ( < 0.05) but not in functional improvement ( = 0.89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement ( < 0.05) but not in pain reduction ( = 0.26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction ( = 0.21) and functional improvement ( = 0.45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.
Topics: Animals; Databases, Factual; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 32309424
DOI: 10.1155/2020/1907821 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Mar 2015There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.
RESULTS
Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.
CONCLUSIONS
The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 25879879
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-015-0554-0 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Dec 2015To reach a European consensus on the definition and characterization of the main organ-specific extraglandular manifestations in primary SS.
OBJECTIVE
To reach a European consensus on the definition and characterization of the main organ-specific extraglandular manifestations in primary SS.
METHODS
The EULAR-SS Task Force Group steering committee agreed to approach SS-related systemic involvement according to the EULAR SS Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) classification and proposed the preparation of four separate manuscripts: articular, cutaneous, pulmonary and renal ESSDAI involvement; muscular, peripheral nervous system, CNS and haematological ESSDAI involvement; organs not included in the ESSDAI classification; and lymphoproliferative disease. Currently available evidence was obtained by a systematic literature review focused on SS-related systemic features.
RESULTS
The following information was summarized for articular, cutaneous, pulmonary and renal involvement: a clear, consensual definition of the clinical feature, a brief epidemiological description including an estimate of the prevalence reported in the main clinical series and a brief list of the key clinical and diagnostic features that could help physicians clearly identify these features. Unfortunately we found that the body of evidence relied predominantly on information retrieved from individual cases, and the scientific information provided was heterogeneous. The analysis of types of involvement was biased due to the unbalanced reporting of severe cases over non-severe cases, although the main sources of bias were the heterogeneous definitions of organ involvement (or even the lack of definition in some studies) and the heterogeneous diagnostic approach used in studies to investigate involvment of each organ.
CONCLUSION
The proposals included in this article are a first step to developing an optimal diagnostic approach to systemic involvement in primary SS and may pave the way for further development of evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.
Topics: Adult; Advisory Committees; Europe; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Joint Diseases; Kidney Diseases; Lung Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Prognosis; Severity of Illness Index; Sjogren's Syndrome; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 26231345
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev200 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy remains equivocal.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, with or without calcification, and to establish its usefulness in the context of other available treatment options.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to November 2019, with no restrictions on language. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomised methods to allocate participants, investigating participants with rotator cuff disease with or without calcific deposits. We included trials of comparisons of extracorporeal or radial shock wave therapy versus any other intervention. Major outcomes were pain relief greater than 30%, mean pain score, function, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, number of participants experiencing adverse events and number of withdrawals due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was shock wave therapy compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (2281 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Most trials (25) included participants with rotator cuff disease and calcific deposits, five trials included participants with rotator cuff disease and no calcific deposits, and two trials included a mixed population of participants with and without calcific deposits. Twelve trials compared shock wave therapy to placebo, 11 trials compared high-dose shock wave therapy (0.2 mJ/mm² to 0.4 mJ/mm² and above) to low-dose shock wave therapy. Single trials compared shock wave therapy to ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid needling, ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), no treatment or exercise; dual session shock wave therapy to single session therapy; and different delivery methods of shock wave therapy. Our main comparison was shock wave therapy versus placebo and results are reported for the 3 month follow up. All trials were susceptible to bias; including selection (74%), performance (62%), detection (62%), and selective reporting (45%) biases. No trial measured participant-reported pain relief of 30%. However, in one trial (74 participants), at 3 months follow up, 14/34 participants reported pain relief of 50% or greater with shock wave therapy compared with 15/40 with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.94); low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.02 points in the placebo group and 0.78 points better (0.17 better to 1.4 better; clinically important change was 1.5 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 608 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Mean function (scale 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 66 points with placebo and 7.9 points better (1.6 better to 14 better, clinically important difference 10 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 612 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Participant-reported success was reported by 58/150 people in shock wave therapy group compared with 35/137 people in placebo group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.91; 6 trials, 287 participants), low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). None of the trials measured quality of life. Withdrawal rate or adverse event rates may not differ between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and placebo, but we are uncertain due to the small number of events. There were 11/34 withdrawals in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group compared with 13/40 withdrawals in the placebo group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.31; 7 trials, 581 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision); and 41/156 adverse events with extracorporeal shock wave therapy compared with 10/139 adverse events in the placebo group (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.52; 5 trials, 295 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no between-group differences in pain and function outcomes in participants who did or did not have calcific deposits in the rotator cuff.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the currently available low- to moderate-certainty evidence, there were very few clinically important benefits of shock wave therapy, and uncertainty regarding its safety. Wide clinical diversity and varying treatment protocols means that we do not know whether or not some trials tested subtherapeutic doses, possibly underestimating any potential benefits. Further trials of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review. A standard dose and treatment protocol should be decided upon before further research is conducted. Development of a core set of outcomes for trials of rotator cuff disease and other shoulder disorders would also facilitate our ability to synthesise the evidence.
Topics: Calcinosis; Exercise Therapy; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Middle Aged; Muscular Diseases; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotator Cuff; Shoulder Pain; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 32128761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008962.pub2