Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) has an impact on physical health and quality of life for patients, with various noninvasive methods used for relieving myofascial pain. The authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of different noninvasive therapeutic interventions for MPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials describing the effects of any noninvasive treatments in patients with MPS. The primary outcome was pain intensity, while pressure pain threshold and pain-related disability were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis included 40 studies. Manual therapy [mean difference (MD) of pain: -1.60, 95% CI: -2.17 to -1.03; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.86; MD of pain-related disability: -5.34, 95% CI: -8.09 to -2.58], laser therapy (MD of pain: -1.15, 95% CI: -1.83 to -0.46; MD of pressure pain threshold: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; MD of pain-related disability: -4.58, 95% CI: -7.80 to -1.36), extracorporeal shock wave therapy (MD of pain: -1.61, 95% CI: -2.43 to -0.78; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.35; MD of pain-related disability: -5.78, 95% CI: -9.45 to -2.12), and ultrasound therapy (MD of pain: -1.54, 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.84; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.22) were more effective than no treatment. CONCLUSION: Our findings support that manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy could effectively reduce pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and pain-related disability with statistical significance when compared with placebo. This finding may provide clinicians with appropriate therapeutic modalities for patients with MPS among different scenarios.

Reliability and validity of the simplified Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the immune checkpoint modulator (ICM) subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator (FACT-ICM) scale and to validate the FACT-ICM scale in Chinese cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment. METHODS: In total, 354 cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in our cross-sectional study including 2 phases. Firstly, the ICM subscale was translated and culturally adapted by standardized procedures. Then the FACT-ICM scale was validated, which included item analysis, content validity, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent/divergent validity, and known-group validity. RESULTS: The content validity indexes at the item and scale level of the ICM subscale were greater than 0.8. No floor and ceiling effects were found. The Cronbach's α and McDonald's omega coefficients of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale were 0.935 and 0.936, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.833 (95% confidence interval: 0.574-0.940). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-subscale structure of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale (χ2/df = 2.144, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.072, and CFI = 0.848). Convergent and divergent validity further supported the construct validity of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale. The known-group validity of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale was confirmed in patients with different physical statuses. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale is a valid and reliable instrument and can be used in clinical practice and research on cancer patients receiving ICIs treatment.