Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a major cause of chronic, neurological disability, with a significant long-term disability burden, often requiring comprehensive rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence from published Cochrane Reviews of clinical trials to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions for people with MS (pwMS), to improve patient outcomes, and to highlight current gaps in knowledge. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to December 2017, to identify Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effectiveness of organised rehabilitation interventions for pwMS. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included reviews, using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) tool, and the quality of the evidence for reported outcomes, using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 15 reviews published in the Cochrane Library, comprising 164 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four controlled clinical trials, with a total of 10,396 participants. The included reviews evaluated a wide range of rehabilitation interventions, including: physical activity and exercise therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), whole-body vibration, occupational therapy, cognitive and psychological interventions, nutritional and dietary supplements, vocational rehabilitation, information provision, telerehabilitation, and interventions for the management of spasticity. We assessed all reviews to be of high to moderate methodological quality, based on R-AMSTAR criteria.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that physical therapeutic modalities (exercise and physical activities) improved functional outcomes (mobility, muscular strength), reduced impairment (fatigue), and improved participation (quality of life). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that inpatient or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes led to longer-term gains at the levels of activity and participation, and interventions that provided information improved patient knowledge. Low-qualitty evidence suggested that neuropsychological interventions, symptom-management programmes (spasticity), whole body vibration, and telerehabilitation improved some patient outcomes. Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was inconclusive, due to lack of robust studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that regular specialist evaluation and follow-up to assess the needs of patients with all types of MS for appropriate rehabilitation interventions may be of benefit, although the certainty of evidence varies across the different types of interventions evaluated by the reviews. Structured, multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes and physical therapy (exercise or physical activities) can improve functional outcomes (mobility, muscle strength, aerobic capacity), and quality of life. Overall, the evidence for many rehabilitation interventions should be interpreted cautiously, as the majority of included reviews did not include data from current studies. More studies, with appropriate design, which report the type and intensity of modalities and their cost-effectiveness are needed to address the current gaps in knowledge.

Applicability of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation interventions in natural disaster settings.

Objective: To evaluate published traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and assess rehabilitation intervention recommendations for applicability in disaster settings. Methods: Recommendations for rehabilitation interventions were synthesized from currently published TBI CPGs, developed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DLE); Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN); Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defence (DVA/DOD); and American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA). Three authors independently extracted, compared, and categorized evidence-based rehabilitation intervention recommendations from these CPGs for applicability in disaster settings. Results: The key recommendations from a rehabilitation perspective for TBI survivors in disaster settings included patient/carer education, general physical therapy, practice in daily living activities and safe equipment use, direct cognitive/behavioral feedback, basic compensatory memory/visual strategies, basic swallowing/communication, and psychological input. More advanced interventions are generally not applicable following disasters due to limited access to services, trained staff/resources, equipment, funding, and operational issues. Conclusions: Many recommendations for TBI care are challenging to implement in disaster settings due to complexities related to the environment, resources, service provision, workforce, and other reasons. Further research is needed to identify and address barriers for implementation.

Clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation in traumatic brain injury: a critical appraisal.

This review aim to provide an overview of recommendations and quality of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the rehabilitation perspective. Comprehensive literature search, including health databases, CPG clearinghouse/developer websites, and grey literature using Internet search engines up to September 2017. All TBI CPGs published in the last decade were selected if their scope included management of TBI, systematic methods for evidence search, clear defined recommendations, and supporting evidence for rehabilitation interventions. Three authors independently critically appraised the quality of included CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument. Four of 13 potential CPGs met the inclusion criteria. Despite variation in scope, target population, size, and guideline development processes, all four CPGs assessed were good quality (AGREE score of 5-7/7). Key rehabilitation recommendations included education, physical rehabilitation, integrated computer-based management, repetitive task-specific practice in daily living activities, safe equipment usage, cognitive/behavioral feedback, compensatory memory/visual strategies, swallowing/communication, and psychological input for TBI survivors. In conclusion, although rehabilitation is an integral component in TBI management, many published CPGs do not include rehabilitation. These CPGs, however, recommend comprehensive, flexible coordinated multidisciplinary care and appropriate follow-up, education, and support for patients with TBI (and carers).

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common and significantly impacts on the lives of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Various types of non-pharmacological interventions are widely used, both in hospital and ambulatory/mobility settings to improve pain control in pwMS, but the effectiveness and safety of many non-pharmacological modalities is still unknown. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for the management of chronic pain in pwMS. Specific questions to be addressed by this review include the following.Are non-pharmacological interventions (unidisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary rehabilitation) effective in reducing chronic pain in pwMS?What type of non-pharmacological interventions (unidisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary rehabilitation) are effective (least and most effective) and in what setting, in reducing chronic pain in pwMS? SEARCH METHODS: A literature search was performed using the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, using the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register which contains CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACUS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 10 December 2017. Handsearching of relevant journals and screening of reference lists of relevant studies was carried out. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs)and cross-over studies that compared non-pharmacological therapies with a control intervention for managing chronic pain in pwMS were included. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool for best-evidence synthesis. Pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible due to methodological, clinical and statistically heterogeneity of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 10 RCTs with 565 participants which investigated different non-pharmacological interventions for the management of chronic pain in MS fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. The non-pharmacological interventions evaluated included: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), psychotherapy (telephone self-management, hypnosis and electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial direct stimulation (tDCS), hydrotherapy (Ai Chi) and reflexology.There is very low-level evidence for the use of non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain such as TENS, Ai Chi, tDCS, tRNS, telephone-delivered self-management program, EEG biofeedback and reflexology in pain intensity in pwMS. Although there were improved changes in pain scores and secondary outcomes (such as fatigue, psychological symptoms, spasm in some interventions), these were limited by methodological biases within the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of a wide range of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic pain in pwMS, the evidence for these interventions is still limited or insufficient, or both. More studies with robust methodology and greater numbers of participants are needed to justify the effect of these interventions for the management of chronic pain in pwMS.

Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate existing evidence from published systematic reviews of clinical trials for the effectiveness of rehabilitation for improving function and participation in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using medical and health science electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library) up to January 31, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select potential systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of organized rehabilitation for persons with MS. Data were summarized for type of interventions, type of study designs included, outcome domains, method of data synthesis, and findings. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently for methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Quality of evidence was critically appraised with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-nine systematic reviews (one with 2 reports) evaluated best evidence to date. There is "strong" evidence for physical therapy for improved activity and participation, and for exercise-based educational programs for the reduction of patient-reported fatigue. There is "moderate" evidence for multidisciplinary rehabilitation for longer-term gains at the levels of activity (disability) and participation, for cognitive-behavior therapy for the treatment of depression, and for information-provision interventions for improved patient knowledge. There is "limited" evidence for better patient outcomes using psychological and symptom management programs (fatigue, spasticity). For other rehabilitation interventions, the evidence is inconclusive because of limited methodologically robust studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the range of rehabilitative treatments available for MS, there is a lack of high-quality evidence for many modalities. Further research is needed for effective rehabilitation approaches with appropriate study design, outcome measurement, type and intensity of modalities, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours can cause significant disability, which may be amenable to multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, the evidence base for this is unclear. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [2013, Issue 1, Art. No. CD009509] on 'Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment'. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in people after primary brain tumour treatment, especially the types of approaches that are effective (settings, intensity). SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library up to Issue 12 of 12, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to January week 2, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January week 2, 2015), PEDro (1985 to January week 2 2015), and LILACS (1982 to January week 2, 2015). We checked the bibliographies of papers we identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to seek published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised clinical trials) that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in primary brain tumour with either routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention, or studies that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in different settings or at different levels of intensity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed study quality, extracted data, and performed a 'best evidence ' synthesis based on methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in the previous version of this review. For this update, the literature search identified one low-quality controlled clinical trial involving 106 participants. The findings from this study suggest 'low-level' evidence to support high-intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation in reducing short- and long-term motor disability (continence, mobility and locomotion, cognition), when compared with standard outpatient care. We found improvement in some domains of disability (continence, communication) and psychosocial gains were maintained at six months follow-up. We found no evidence for improvement in overall participation (quality of life and societal relationship). No adverse events were reported as a result of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. We found no evidence for improvement in quality of life or cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation. It was also not possible to suggest best 'dose' of therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, one new study has been identified for inclusion. The best evidence to date comes from this CCT, which provides low quality evidence that higher intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation reduces short- and long-term disability in people with brain tumour compared with standard outpatient care. Our conclusions are tentative at best, given gaps in current research in this area. Although the strength of evidence has increased with the identification of a new controlled clinical trial in this updated review, further research is needed into appropriate and robust study designs; outcome measurement; caregiver needs; evaluation of optimal settings; type, intensity, duration of therapy; and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the brain tumour population.

Telerehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation, an emerging method, extends rehabilitative care beyond the hospital, and facilitates multifaceted, often psychotherapeutic approaches to modern management of patients using telecommunication technology at home or in the community. Although a wide range of telerehabilitation interventions are trialed in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), evidence for their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation intervention in pwMS for improved patient outcomes. Specifically, this review addresses the following questions: does telerehabilitation achieve better outcomes compared with traditional face-to-face intervention; and what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, in which setting and influence which specific outcomes (impairment, activity limitation and participation)? SEARCH METHODS: We performed a literature search using the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group Specialised Register( 9 July, 2014.) We handsearched the relevant journals and screened the reference lists of identified studies, and contacted authors for additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that reported telerehabilitation intervention/s in pwMS and compared them with some form of control intervention (such as lower level or different types of intervention, minimal intervention, waiting-list controls or no treatment (or usual care); interventions given in different settings) in adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the GRADEpro software (GRADEpro 2008) for best-evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was not possible due to marked methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between included trials and between measurement tools used. Hence, we performed a best-evidence synthesis using a qualitative analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs, one with two reports, (N = 531 participants, 469 included in analyses) investigated a variety of telerehabilitation interventions in adults with MS. The mean age of participants varied from 41 to 52 years (mean 46.5 years) and mean years since diagnosis from 7.7 to 19.0 years (mean 12.3 years). The majority of the participants were women (proportion ranging from 56% to 87%, mean 74%) and with a relapsing-remitting course of MS. These interventions were complex, with more than one rehabilitation component and included physical activity, educational, behavioural and symptom management programmes.All studies scored 'low' on the methodological quality assessment. Overall, the review found 'low-level' evidence for telerehabilitation interventions in reducing short-term disability and symptoms such as fatigue. There was also 'low-level' evidence supporting telerehabilitation in the longer term for improved functional activities, impairments (such as fatigue, pain, insomnia); and participation measured by quality of life and psychological outcomes. There were limited data on process evaluation (participants'/therapists' satisfaction) and no data available for cost effectiveness. There were no adverse events reported as a result of telerehabilitation interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation in improving functional activities, fatigue and quality of life in adults with MS. A range of telerehabilitation interventions might be an alternative method of delivering services in MS populations. There is insufficient evidence to support on what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, and in which setting. More robust trials are needed to build evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of these interventions.

Medical Rehabilitation in Natural Disasters: A Review.

OBJECTIVE: To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of medical rehabilitation intervention in natural disaster survivors and outcomes that are affected. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using medical and health science electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO) up to September 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies reporting outcomes for natural disaster survivors after medical rehabilitation that addressed functional restoration and participation. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of the studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program's appraisal tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: A meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity among included trials; therefore, a narrative analysis was performed for best evidence synthesis. Ten studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 8 observational studies) investigated a variety of medical rehabilitation interventions for natural disaster survivors to evaluate best evidence to date. The interventions ranged from comprehensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation to community educational programs. Studies scored low on quality assessment because of methodologic limitations. The findings suggest some evidence for the effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in reducing disability and improving participation and quality of life and for community-based rehabilitation for participation. There were no data available for associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need to incorporate medical rehabilitation into response planning and disaster management for future natural catastrophes. Access to rehabilitation and investment in sustainable infrastructure and education are crucial. More methodologically robust studies are needed to build evidence for rehabilitation programs, cost-effectiveness, and outcome measurement in such settings.

Rehabilitation in adults with burn injury: an overview of systematic reviews.

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate evidence from published systematic reviews for the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with burn injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review conducted using medical and health science electronic databases up to 31 July 2022. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological study quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), and the certainty of evidence for reported outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews evaluated five categories of interventions: physical, psychological, technology-aided modalities, educational and occupational programs, complementary and alternative medicine. Outcomes included fitness level, hand function, oedema, pain, pruritus, psychological state, quality of life, range of motion, return to work, strength, scar characteristics, level of impairment and burn knowledge. The methodological quality was rated as "critically low" for all reviews. Quality of evidence for the effectiveness of evaluated interventions ranged from "moderate to very low." CONCLUSIONS: Beneficial effects of inhaled aromatherapy and extracorporeal shockwave therapy on pain reduction; inhaled or massage aromatherapy, music therapy on anxiety were reported. Safety of interventions was not evaluated, due to the lack of adverse event reporting in primary studies and the included reviews.

Burn injury is a leading cause of severe morbidity, and long-term disability, with significant health and economic burden.There is emerging evidence to support the use of complementary and alternative medicine interventions (such as aromatherapy and music therapy) for alleviating anxiety.Extracorporeal shockwave therapy with comprehensive rehabilitation therapy has positive effects on pain reduction.These interventions may be considered as adjunctive tools to enhance burn rehabilitation care and improve patient outcomes. However, further robust studies are required to strengthen the evidence, explore adverse effects and associated cost efficiency.

Factors associated with long-term functional outcomes, psychological sequelae and quality of life in persons after primary brain tumour.

To examine factors impacting long-term functional outcomes and psychological sequelae in persons with primary brain tumours (BT) in an Australian community cohort. Participants (n = 106) following definitive treatment for BT in the community were reviewed in rehabilitation clinics to assess impact on participants' current activity and restriction in participation, using validated questionnaires: Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Perceived Impact Problem Profile (PIPP), Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form and Cancer Survivor Unmet Needs Measure. Mean age of the participants was 51 years (range 21-77 years), majority were female (56 %) with median time since BT diagnosis 2.1 years and a third (39 %) had high grade tumours. Majority showed good functional recovery (median motor FIM score 75). Over half reported pain (56 %), of which 42 % had headaches. Other impairments included: ataxia (44 %), seizures (43 %); paresis (37 %), cognitive dysfunction (36 %) and visual impairment (35 %). About 20 % reported high levels of depression, compared with only 13 % in an Australian normative sample. Two-third (60 %) participants reported highest impact on the PIPP subscales for psychological wellbeing (scores of >3 on 6-point scale) and participation (45 %). Factors significantly associated with poorer current level of functioning and wellbeing included: younger participants (≤40 years), recent diagnoses, aggressive tumour types and presence of pain. No significant differences in scale scores were found across various treatments (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy) on outcomes used. Rehabilitation for BT survivors is challenging and requires long-term management of psychological sequelae impacting activity and participation. More research into participatory limitation is needed to guide treating clinicians.