-
Nutrients Jul 2020Neuropathic pain describes a range of unpleasant sensations caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The sensations caused by neuropathic pain...
Neuropathic pain describes a range of unpleasant sensations caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The sensations caused by neuropathic pain are debilitating and improved treatment regimens are sought in order to improve the quality of life of patients. One proposed treatment for neuropathic pain is vitamin B12, which is thought to alleviate pain by a number of mechanisms including promoting myelination, increasing nerve regeneration and decreasing ectopic nerve firing. In this paper, the evidence for B12 as a drug treatment for neuropathic pain is reviewed. Twenty four published articles were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review in which a range of treatment regimens were evaluated including both B12 monotherapy and B12 in combination with other vitamins or conventional treatments, such as gabapentinoids. Overall, this systematic review demonstrates that there is currently some evidence for the therapeutic effect of B12 in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (level II evidence) and the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy (level III evidence).
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neuralgia; Observational Studies as Topic; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 32722436
DOI: 10.3390/nu12082221 -
CA: a Cancer Journal For Clinicians May 2016Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other... (Review)
Review
Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other health practitioners with the care of head and neck cancer survivors, including monitoring for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, and care coordination. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015, and a multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, dentistry, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, clinical psychology, speech-language pathology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, the patient perspective, and nursing was assembled. While the guideline is based on a systematic review of the current literature, most evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong recommendation. Therefore, recommendations should be viewed as consensus-based management strategies for assisting patients with physical and psychosocial effects of head and neck cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:203-239. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Topics: Accessory Nerve Diseases; Aftercare; American Cancer Society; Anxiety; Bursitis; Deglutition Disorders; Dental Care; Dental Caries; Depression; Disease Management; Dystonia; Fatigue; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Health Promotion; Humans; Hypothyroidism; Lymphedema; Neck Muscles; Osteonecrosis; Periodontitis; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Respiratory Aspiration; Sleep Apnea Syndromes; Sleep Wake Disorders; Stress, Psychological; Survivors; Taste Disorders; Trismus; Vestibular Neuronitis; Voice Disorders; Xerostomia
PubMed: 27002678
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21343 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2021(1) Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy in the upper extremity. Conservative treatment has been effective for mild and... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy in the upper extremity. Conservative treatment has been effective for mild and moderate idiopathic CTS. However, severe CTS and systemic conditions were an exclusion criterion from the studies. The aim of this study is to review the effectiveness of conservative treatment in patients with CTS regardless of the level of severity and the presence or not of systemic diseases in the last ten years. (2) Methods: Randomized controlled clinical trials that compared the effect of conservative treatment on the Boston questionnaire and pain were selected. PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were used. PRISMA statement checklist was performed. (3) Results: 876 studies were recorded, 29 were selected. Pharmacology, Electrotherapy and Manual Therapy had benefits for CTS. Electrotherapy and manual therapy could be effective for severe CTS patients with a systemic condition in the short term, but there was a low percentage of these patients included in the studies. (4) Conclusion: Some pharmacological treatments, manual therapy and electrotherapy have shown benefits for handling CTS, although the most effective combination of techniques is unknown. It would be necessary to include patients with systemic conditions in the selection criteria for future studies.
Topics: Boston; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Conservative Treatment; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33671060
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052365 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2023To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).
RESULTS
24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).
CONCLUSION
Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021269997.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Quality of Life; Back Pain; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Steroids; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37076169
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070730 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Mar 2022Pharmacological strategies for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) are very limited. We systematically reviewed data on rehabilitation, exercise,... (Review)
Review
Rehabilitation, exercise, and related non-pharmacological interventions for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: Systematic review and evidence-based recommendations.
Pharmacological strategies for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) are very limited. We systematically reviewed data on rehabilitation, exercise, physical therapy, and other physical non-pharmacological interventions and offered evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. A literature search using PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL was conducted from database inception until May 31st, 2021. 2791 records were title-abstract screened, 71 papers were full-text screened, 41 studies were included, 21 on prevention and 20 on treatment of CIPN. Treatment type, cancer type, chemotherapy compounds were heterogeneous, sample size was small (median: N = 34) and intention-to-treat analysis was lacking in 26/41 reports. Because of the methodological issues of included studies, the reviewed evidence should be considered as preliminary. Exercise, endurance, strength, balance, and sensorimotor training have been studied in low-to-moderate quality studies, while the evidence for other treatments is preliminary/inconclusive. We offer recommendation for the design of future trials on CIPN.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Exercise; Humans; Neoplasms; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 34968623
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103575 -
Neurologia 2018Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy. It is characterised by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. CTS presents a...
BACKGROUND
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy. It is characterised by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. CTS presents a high prevalence and it is a disabling condition from the earliest stages. Severe cases are usually treated surgically, while conservative treatment is recommended in mild to moderate cases. The aim of this systematic review is to present the conservative treatments and determine their effectiveness in mild-to-moderate cases of CTS over the last 15 years.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA criteria. We used the Medline, PEDro, and Cochrane databases to find and select randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of conservative treatment on the symptoms and functional ability of patients with mild to moderate CTS; 32 clinical trials were included. There is evidence supporting the effectiveness of oral drugs, although injections appear to be more effective. Splinting has been shown to be effective, and it is also associated with use of other non-pharmacological techniques. Assessments of the use of electrotherapy techniques alone have shown no conclusive results about their effectiveness. Other soft tissue techniques have also shown good results but evidence on this topic is limited. Various treatment combinations (drug and non-pharmacological treatments) have been proposed without conclusive results.
CONCLUSIONS
Several conservative treatments are able to relieve symptoms and improve functional ability of patients with mild-to-moderate CTS. These include splinting, oral drugs, injections, electrotherapy, specific manual techniques, and neural gliding exercises as well as different combinations of the above. We have been unable to describe the best technique or combination of techniques due to the limitations of the studies; therefore, further studies of better methodological quality are needed.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Conservative Treatment; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27461181
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2016.05.018 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2023Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).
RESULTS
Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
CONCLUSION
Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 36580149
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07356-y -
Neurosurgery Jun 2022Although numerous articles have been published not only on the classification of thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) but also on diagnostic standards, timing, and type of... (Review)
Review
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Part I: Systematic Review of the Literature and Consensus on Anatomy, Diagnosis, and Classification of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome by the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies' Section of Peripheral Nerve Surgery.
BACKGROUND
Although numerous articles have been published not only on the classification of thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) but also on diagnostic standards, timing, and type of surgical intervention, there still remains some controversy because of the lack of level 1 evidence. So far, attempts to generate uniform reporting standards have not yielded conclusive results.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the body of evidence and reach a consensus among neurosurgeons experienced in TOS regarding anatomy, diagnosis, and classification.
METHODS
A systematic literature search on PubMed/MEDLINE was performed on February 13, 2021, yielding 2853 results. Abstracts were screened and classified. Recommendations were developed in a meeting held online on February 10, 2021, and refined according to the Delphi consensus method.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials (on surgical, conservative, and injection therapies), 4 "guideline" articles (on imaging and reporting standards), 5 observational studies (on diagnostics, hierarchic designs of physiotherapy vs surgery, and quality of life outcomes), and 6 meta-analyses were identified. The European Association of Neurosurgical Societies' section of peripheral nerve surgery established 18 statements regarding anatomy, diagnosis, and classification of TOS with agreement levels of 98.4 % (±3.0).
CONCLUSION
Because of the lack of level 1 evidence, consensus statements on anatomy, diagnosis, and classification of TOS from experts of the section of peripheral nerve surgery of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies were developed with the Delphi method. Further work on reporting standards, prospective data collections, therapy, and long-term outcome is necessary.
Topics: Humans; Neurosurgical Procedures; Peripheral Nerves; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
PubMed: 35319532
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001908 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... Jun 2015MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
Through a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice.
METHODS
PubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified.
RESULTS
To date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems.
CONCLUSIONS
The main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Observer Variation; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Radiculopathy; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 24825130
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3674-y -
Neuroepidemiology 2016Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is the most common inherited neuropathy. CMT is classified into 2 main subgroups: CMT type 1 (CMT1; demyelinating form) and CMT type 2... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is the most common inherited neuropathy. CMT is classified into 2 main subgroups: CMT type 1 (CMT1; demyelinating form) and CMT type 2 (CMT2; axonal form). The objectives of this study were to systematically review and assess the quality of studies reporting the incidence and/or prevalence of CMT worldwide.
SUMMARY
A total of 802 studies were initially identified, with only 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. CMT prevalence was reported in 10 studies and ranged from 9.7/100,000 in Serbia to 82.3/100,000 in Norway. The frequency of the main subtypes varied from 37.6 to 84% for CMT1 and from 12 to 35.9% for CMT2; the country with the lowest prevalence of CMT1 was Norway, and the country with the highest prevalence of CMT1 was Iceland; on the other hand, CMT2 was least prevalent in the United Kingdom and most prevalent in Norway.
KEY MESSAGES
This review reveals the gaps that still exist in the epidemiological knowledge of CMT around the world. Published studies are of varying quality and utilise different methodologies, thus precluding a robust conclusion. Additional research focusing on epidemiological features of CMT in different nations and different ethnic groups is needed.
Topics: Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Population Surveillance
PubMed: 26849231
DOI: 10.1159/000443706