Over-ground walking or robot-assisted gait training in people with .multiple sclerosis: does the effect depend on baseline walking speed and disease related disabilities? A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: It was suggested that robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) should not be routinely provided to disabled patients in place of conventional over-ground walking training (CGT). There exist several randomised controlled trials reporting on RAGT for people with multiple sclerosis. However, the effectiveness of RAGT varies between studies with the effectiveness pointing in different directions. It might be possible that the effectiveness of RAGT and CGT depends on the disease related disabilities of the people included in the clinical studies. We aimed to systematically search RCTs and to perform a meta-regression to compare the effects of robot-assisted gait training in people with less and higher disease related disabilities. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were used to classify level of disability. METHODS: A systematic search was developed to search four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and CINAHL) for eligible articles. A random effects model was applied to meta-analyse the effects of the interventions. Meta-regression was performed with an uni-variable random effects model using baseline walking speed and EDSS to predict the between group effect. RESULTS: The search on databases resulted in 596 records and finally nine studies were included into the review. The pooled estimates of the effects for performance over short and long distance tests were small and non-significant: -0.08 SMD (95% CI: -0.51 to 0.35) and - 0.24 SMD (95% CI: -0.67 to 0.19). Neither baseline walking speed or disease related disability were related to the mean effect size. DISCUSSION: Future studies are needed to help clinicians to decide, which intervention should be allocated to the individual patient.

Effectiveness of conservative interventions including exercise, manual therapy and medical management in adults with shoulder impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of conservative interventions for pain, function and range of motion in adults with shoulder impingement. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase and PEDro were searched from inception to January 2017. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants with shoulder impingement and evaluating at least one conservative intervention against sham or other treatments. RESULTS: For pain, exercise was superior to non-exercise control interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.94, 95% CI -1.69 to -0.19). Specific exercises were superior to generic exercises (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.32). Corticosteroid injections were superior to no treatment (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.26), and ultrasound guided injections were superior to non-guided injections (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.13). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) had a small to moderate SMD of -0.29 (95% CI -0.53 to -0.05) compared with placebo. Manual therapy was superior to placebo (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01). When combined with exercise, manual therapy was superior to exercise alone, but only at the shortest follow-up (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.01). Laser was superior to sham laser (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.27). Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ECSWT) was superior to sham (-0.39, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.01) and tape was superior to sham (-0.64, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.12), with small to moderate SMDs. CONCLUSION: Although there was only very low quality evidence, exercise should be considered for patients with shoulder impingement symptoms and tape, ECSWT, laser or manual therapy might be added. NSAIDS and corticosteroids are superior to placebo, but it is unclear how these treatments compare to exercise.