Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents. OBJECTIVES: Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Cohort profile: Using primary care data to understand Opioid Prescribing, Policy Impacts and Clinical Outcomes (OPPICO) in Victoria, Australia.

PURPOSE: The OPPICO cohort is a population-based cohort based on non-identifiable electronic health records routinely collected from 464 general practices in Victoria, Australia, created with the aim of understanding opioid prescribing, policy impacts and clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide a profile of the study cohort by summarising available demographic, clinical and prescribing characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort described in this paper comprises people who were aged at least 14 years at cohort entry, and who were prescribed an opioid analgesic at least once at participating practices for a total of 1 137 728 person-years from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The cohort was formed using the data collected from electronic health records through the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) system. The POLAR data primarily consist of patient demographics, clinical measurements, Australian Medicare Benefits Scheme item numbers, diagnoses, pathology testing and prescribed medications. FINDING TO DATE: In total, the cohort consists of 676 970 participants with 4 389 185 opioid prescription records from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. Approximately half (48.7%) received a single opioid prescription, and 0.9% received more than 100 opioid prescriptions. The mean number of opioid prescriptions per patient was 6.5 (SD=20.9); prescriptions for strong opioids accounted for 55.6% of all opioid prescriptions. FUTURE PLANS: The OPPICO cohort data will be used for various types of pharmacoepidemiological research, including examining the impact of policy changes on coprescription of opioids with benzodiazepines and gabapentin, and monitoring trends and patterns of other medication utilisation. Through data-linkage between our OPPICO cohort and hospital outcome data, we will examine whether policy changes for opioid prescribing lead to changes in prescription opioid-related harms, and other drug and mental health-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EU PAS Register (EUPAS43218, prospectively registered).

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing overuse of pathology test requesting by Australian general practitioners: protocol for a factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Consistent evidence shows pathology services are overused worldwide and that about one-third of testing is unnecessary. Audit and feedback (AF) is effective for improving care but few trials evaluating AF to reduce pathology test requesting in primary care have been conducted. The aim of this trial is to estimate the effectiveness of AF for reducing requests for commonly overused pathology test combinations by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs) compared with no intervention control. A secondary aim is to evaluate which forms of AF are most effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in Australian general practice. It uses routinely collected Medicare Benefits Schedule data to identify the study population, apply eligibility criteria, generate the interventions and analyse outcomes. On 12 May 2022, all eligible GPs were simultaneously randomised to either no intervention control or to one of eight intervention groups. GPs allocated to an intervention group received individualised AF on their rate of requesting of pathology test combinations compared with their GP peers. Three separate elements of the AF intervention will be evaluated when outcome data become available on 11 August 2023: (1) invitation to participate in continuing professional development-accredited education on appropriate pathology requesting, (2) provision of cost information on pathology test combinations and (3) format of feedback. The primary outcome is the overall rate of requesting of any of the displayed combinations of pathology tests of GPs over 6 months following intervention delivery. With 3371 clusters, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate over 95% power to detect a difference of 4.4 requests in the mean rate of pathology test combination requests between the control and intervention groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (#JH03507; approved 30 November 2021). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Reporting will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000566730.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. RESULTS: From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. CONCLUSION: Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140784.

Dietary supplements for chronic gout.

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplements are frequently used for the treatment of several medical conditions, both prescribed by physicians or self administered. However, evidence of benefit and safety of these supplements is usually limited or absent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of dietary supplementation for people with chronic gout. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the original search by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and four trials registers (August 2020). We applied no date or language restrictions. We also handsearched the abstracts from the 2010 to 2019 American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism conferences, and checked the references of all included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared dietary supplements with no supplements, placebo, another supplement, or pharmacological agents for adults with chronic gout for inclusion. Dietary supplements included, but were not limited to, amino acids, antioxidants, essential minerals, polyunsaturated fatty acids, prebiotic agents, probiotic agents, and vitamins. The major outcomes were acute gout flares, study withdrawal due to adverse events (AEs), serum uric acid (sUA) reduction, joint pain reduction, participant global assessment, total number of AEs, and tophus regression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Two previously included RCTs (160 participants) met our inclusion criteria; we did not identify any new trials for this update. As these two trials evaluated different diet supplements (enriched skim milk powder (SMP) and vitamin C) with different outcomes (gout flare prevention for enriched SMP, and sUA reduction for vitamin C), we reported the results separately. One trial (120 participants), at unclear risk of selection and detection bias, compared SMP enriched with glycomacropeptides (GMP) with un-enriched SMP, and with lactose, over three months. Participants were predominantly men, aged in their 50s, who had severe gout. The results for all major outcomes were imprecise, except for pain. None of the results were clinically significant. The frequency of acute gout attacks, measured as the number of flares per month, decreased in all three groups over the three-month study period. The effects of enriched SMP (SMP/GMP/G600) compared with the combined control groups (SMP and lactose powder) at three months in terms of mean number of gout flares per month were not clinically significant (mean (standard deviation (SD)) flares per month: 0.49 (1.52) in SMP/GMP/G60 group versus 0.70 (1.28) in the control groups; absolute risk difference: mean difference (MD) -0.21 flares per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76 to 0.34; low-quality evidence). The number of withdrawals due to adverse effects was similar between groups (7/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 11/80 in control groups; (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.03); there were 4% more withdrawals in the SMP/lactose groups (10% fewer to 18% more; low-quality evidence). Serum uric acid reduction was similar across groups (mean (SD) -0.025 (0.067) mmol/L in SMP/GMP/G60 group versus -0.010 (0.069) in control groups; MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; low-quality evidence). Pain from self-reported gout flares (measured on a 10-point Likert scale) improved slightly more in the GMP/G600 SMP group compared with controls (mean (SD) -1.97 (2.28) in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus -0.94 (2.25) in control groups; MD -1.03, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.17). This was an absolute reduction of 10% (95% CI 20% to 1% reduction; low-quality evidence), which may not be of clinical relevance. The risk of adverse events was similar between groups (19/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 39/80 in control groups; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.45); the absolute risk difference was 1% fewer adverse events (1% fewer to 2% more), low-quality evidence). Gastrointestinal events such as nausea, flatulence and diarrhoea were the most commonly reported adverse effects. Data for participant global assessment were not available for analysis; the study did not report tophus regression. One trial (40 participants), at high risk of selection, performance, and detection bias, compared vitamin C alone with allopurinol, and with allopurinol plus vitamin C, in a three-arm study. We only included data from the vitamin C versus allopurinol comparison in this review. Participants were predominantly middle-aged men, and their severity of gout was representative of gout in general. Allopurinol reduced sUA levels more than vitamin C (MD 0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.15), low-quality evidence. The study reported no adverse events; none of the participants withdrew due to adverse events. The study did not assess the rate of gout attacks, joint pain reduction, participant global assessment, or tophus regression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While dietary supplements may be widely used for gout, this review found no high-quality that supported or refuted the use of glycomacropeptide-enriched skim milk powder or vitamin C for adults with chronic gout.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Colchicine for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the first-line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited. OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low-dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three-arm trial compared high-dose colchicine (52 participants), low-dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high-dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low-dose colchicine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low-dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti-gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route). The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open-label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. For the primary comparison, low-quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low-dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low-dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low-dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low-dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high-dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high-dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high-dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence from a single trial comparing high-dose to low-dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low-dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow-up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high-dose versus low-dose colchicine trial. We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low-dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low-quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low-quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high- and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low-quality evidence suggests that high-dose (but not low-dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low-quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low-dose colchicine and NSAIDs. Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.

Oral Complementary Medicine Use among People with Inflammatory Arthritis: An Australian Rheumatology Association Database Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe oral complementary medicine (CM) use in people with inflammatory arthritis, associations with use, and changes in use over time. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data from 5,630 participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD), a national observational database. CM use at entry into ARAD was ascertained for participants recruited between 2002 and 2018. CM was categorised according to the NIH/Cochrane schema (fatty acids, herbs, or supplements). Logistic regression was used to assess associations between demographic characteristics and CM use. Change in CM use between 2006 and 2016 was investigated using a nonparametric test for trend of rate by year. RESULTS: 2,156 (38.3%) ARAD participants were taking CM at enrolment (RA: 1,502/3,960 (37.9%), AS: 281/736 (38.2%), PsA: 334/749 (44.6%), and JIA: 39/185 (21.1%)). CM use was more prevalent in women (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 1.13-1.50), those with tertiary education (OR 1.32; 95% CI: 1.13-1.55), private health insurance (OR 1.26; (95% CI: 1.10-1.44), drinking alcohol sometimes (OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.05-1.43), poorer function (HAQ) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02-1.24), use of NSAID (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.17-1.50), weak (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.05-1.41) but not strong opioids, and less prevalent in current smokers (OR 0.76; 95%: CI 0.63-0.91). CM use was not associated with pain, disease activity, or quality of life. The most common CMs were fish oils (N = 1,489 users) followed by glucosamine (N = 605). Both declined in use over time between 2006 and 2016 (27.5% to 21.4%, trend p = 0.85 and 15.5% to 6.4%, trend p < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: Oral CM use is common among Australians with inflammatory arthritis. Its use is greater among women and those with tertiary education. Fish oil and glucosamine, the most common CMs, both declined in use over time.

Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification.

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.

Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease. DESIGN: Systematic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, function, adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: For effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Over the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016046242.

Electrotherapy modalities for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Management of rotator cuff disease may include use of electrotherapy modalities (also known as electrophysical agents), which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, or thermal) into the body. Examples include therapeutic ultrasound, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). These modalities are usually delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease (e.g. subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, calcific tendinitis), and comparing any electrotherapy modality with placebo, no intervention, a different electrotherapy modality or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Trials investigating whether electrotherapy modalities were more effective than placebo or no treatment, or were an effective addition to another physical therapy intervention (e.g. manual therapy or exercise) were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 trials (2388 participants). Most trials (n = 43) included participants with rotator cuff disease without calcification (four trials included people with calcific tendinitis). Sixteen (34%) trials investigated the effect of an electrotherapy modality delivered in isolation. Only 23% were rated at low risk of allocation bias, and 49% were rated at low risk of both performance and detection bias (for self-reported outcomes). The trials were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention and comparator, so none of the data could be combined in a meta-analysis.In one trial (61 participants; low quality evidence), pulsed therapeutic ultrasound (three to five times a week for six weeks) was compared with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) for calcific tendinitis. At six weeks, the mean reduction in overall pain with placebo was -6.3 points on a 52-point scale, and -14.9 points with ultrasound (MD -8.60 points, 95% CI -13.48 to -3.72 points; absolute risk difference 17%, 7% to 26% more). Mean improvement in function with placebo was 3.7 points on a 100-point scale, and 17.8 points with ultrasound (mean difference (MD) 14.10 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.39 to 22.81 points; absolute risk difference 14%, 5% to 23% more). Ninety-one per cent (29/32) of participants reported treatment success with ultrasound compared with 52% (15/29) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.53; absolute risk difference 39%, 18% to 60% more). Mean improvement in quality of life with placebo was 0.40 points on a 10-point scale, and 2.60 points with ultrasound (MD 2.20 points, 95% CI 0.91 points to 3.49 points; absolute risk difference 22%, 9% to 35% more). Between-group differences were not important at nine months. No participant reported adverse events.Therapeutic ultrasound produced no clinically important additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions (eight clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences in patient-important outcomes between ultrasound and other active interventions (manual therapy, acupuncture, glucocorticoid injection, glucocorticoid injection plus oral tolmetin sodium, or exercise) because the quality of evidence is very low. Two placebo-controlled trials reported results favouring LLLT up to three weeks (low quality evidence), however combining LLLT with other physical therapy interventions produced few additional benefits (10 clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is more or less effective than glucocorticoid injection with respect to pain, function, global treatment success and active range of motion because of the very low quality evidence from a single trial. In other single, small trials, no clinically important benefits of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), microcurrent electrical stimulation (MENS), acetic acid iontophoresis and microwave diathermy were observed (low or very low quality evidence).No adverse events of therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT, TENS or microwave diathermy were reported by any participants. Adverse events were not measured in any trials investigating the effects of PEMF, MENS or acetic acid iontophoresis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, therapeutic ultrasound may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with calcific tendinitis, and LLLT may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with rotator cuff disease. Further high quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. In contrast, based on low quality evidence, PEMF may not provide clinically relevant benefits over placebo, and therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT and PEMF may not provide additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions. We are uncertain whether TENS is superior to placebo, and whether any electrotherapy modality provides benefits over other active interventions (e.g. glucocorticoid injection) because of the very low quality of the evidence. Practitioners should communicate the uncertainty of these effects and consider other approaches or combinations of treatment. Further trials of electrotherapy modalities 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.

Manual therapy and exercise for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Management of rotator cuff disease often includes manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention with placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercises. Trials investigating the primary or add-on effect of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (3620 participants), although only 10 addressed the main comparisons of interest. Overall risk of bias was low in three, unclear in 14 and high in 43 trials. We were unable to perform any meta-analyses because of clinical heterogeneity or incomplete outcome reporting. One trial compared manual therapy and exercise with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) in 120 participants with chronic rotator cuff disease (high quality evidence). At 22 weeks, the mean change in overall pain with placebo was 17.3 points on a 100-point scale, and 24.8 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted mean difference (MD) 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 14.30 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% fewer to 14% more). Mean change in function with placebo was 15.6 points on a 100-point scale, and 22.4 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted MD 7.1 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 13.90 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% to 14% more). Fifty-seven per cent (31/54) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 41% (24/58) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.03; absolute risk difference 16% (2% fewer to 34% more). Thirty-one per cent (17/55) of participants reported adverse events with manual therapy and exercise compared with 8% (5/61) of participants receiving placebo (RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.49 to 9.54; absolute risk difference 23% (9% to 37% more). However adverse events were mild (short-term pain following treatment).Five trials (low quality evidence) found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality of life from four weeks up to 12 months. However, global treatment success was more common up to 11 weeks in people receiving glucocorticoid injection (low quality evidence). One trial (low quality evidence) showed no important differences between manual therapy and exercise and arthroscopic subacromial decompression with respect to overall pain, function, active range of motion and strength at six and 12 months, or global treatment success at four to eight years. One trial (low quality evidence) found that manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as acupuncture plus dietary counselling and Phlogenzym supplement with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality life at 12 weeks. We are uncertain whether manual therapy and exercise improves function more than oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), or whether combining manual therapy and exercise with glucocorticoid injection provides additional benefit in function over glucocorticoid injection alone, because of the very low quality evidence in these two trials.Fifty-two trials investigated effects of manual therapy alone or exercise alone, and the evidence was mostly very low quality. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between manual therapy alone and placebo, no treatment, therapeutic ultrasound and kinesiotaping, although manual therapy alone was less effective than glucocorticoid injection. Exercise alone led to less improvement in overall pain, but not function, when compared with surgical repair for rotator cuff tear. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between exercise alone and placebo, radial extracorporeal shockwave treatment, glucocorticoid injection, arthroscopic subacromial decompression and functional brace. Further, manual therapy or exercise provided few or no additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions, and one type of manual therapy or exercise was rarely more effective than another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying 60 eligible trials, only one trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise reflective of common current practice to placebo. We judged it to be of high quality and found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. Effects of manual therapy and exercise may be similar to those of glucocorticoid injection and arthroscopic subacromial decompression, but this is based on low quality evidence. Adverse events associated with manual therapy and exercise are relatively more frequent than placebo but mild in nature. Novel combinations of manual therapy and exercise should be compared with a realistic placebo in future trials. Further trials of manual therapy alone or exercise alone 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.

Dietary supplements for chronic gout.

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplements are frequently used for the treatment of several medical conditions, both prescribed by physicians or self administered. However, evidence of benefit and safety of these supplements is usually limited or absent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of dietary supplementation for people with chronic gout. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL on 6 June 2013. We applied no date or language restrictions. In addition, we performed a handsearch of the abstracts from the 2010 to 2013 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) conferences, checked the references of all included studies and trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared dietary supplements with no supplements, placebo, another supplement or pharmacological agents for adults with chronic gout for inclusion. Dietary supplements included, but were not limited to, amino acids, antioxidants, essential minerals, polyunsaturated fatty acids, prebiotic agents, probiotic agents and vitamins. The main outcomes were reduction in frequency of gouty attacks and trial participant withdrawal due to adverse events. We also considered pain reduction, health-related quality of life, serum uric acid (sUA) normalisation, function (i.e. activity limitation), tophus regression and the rate of serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two RCTs (160 participants) that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. As these two trials evaluated different diet supplements (enriched skim milk powder (SMP) and vitamin C) with different outcomes (gout flare prevention for enriched SMP and sUA reduction for vitamin C), we reported the results separately.One trial including 120 participants, at moderate risk of bias, compared SMP enriched with glycomacropeptides (GMP) with unenriched SMP and with lactose over three months. Participants were predominantly men aged in their 50's who had severe gout. The frequency of acute gout attacks, measured as the number of flares per month, decreased in all three groups over the study period.The effects of enriched SMP (SMP/GMP/G600) compared with the combined control groups (SMP and lactose powder) at three months in terms of mean number of gout flares per month were uncertain (mean ± standard deviation (SD) flares per month: 0.49 ± 1.52 in SMP/GMP/G60 group versus 0.70 ± 1.28 in control groups; mean difference (MD) -0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76 to 0.34; low-quality evidence). The number of withdrawals due to adverse effects was similar in both groups although again the results were imprecise (7/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 11/80 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.03; low-quality evidence). The findings for adverse events were also uncertain (2/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 3/80 in control groups; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 7.66; low-quality evidence). Gastrointestinal events were the most commonly reported adverse effects. Pain from self reported gout flares (measured on a 10-point Likert scale) improved slightly more in the SMP/GMP/G600 group compared with controls (mean ± SD reduction -1.97 ± 2.28 points in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus -0.94 ± 2.25 in control groups; MD -1.03, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.10; low-quality evidence). This was an absolute reduction of 10% (95% CI 20% to 1% reduction), which may not be of clinical relevance. Results were imprecise for the outcome improvement in physical function (mean ± SD Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)-II (scale 0 to 3, 0 = no disability): 0.08 ± 0.23 in SMP/GMP/G60 group versus 0.11 ± 0.31 in control groups; MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08; low-quality evidence). Similarly, results for sUA reduction were imprecise (mean ± SD reduction: -0.025 ± 0.067 mmol/L in SMP/GMP/G60 group versus -0.010 ± 0.069 in control groups; MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; low-quality evidence). The study did not report tophus regression and health-related quality of life impact.One trial including 40 participants, at moderate to high risk of bias, compared vitamin C alone with allopurinol and with allopurinol plus vitamin C in a three-arm trial. We only compared vitamin C with allopurinol in this review. Participants were predominantly middle-aged men, and their severity of gout was representative of gout in general. The effect of vitamin C on the rate of gout attacks was not assessed. Vitamin C did not lower sUA as much as allopurinol (-0.014 mmol/L in vitamin C group versus -0.118 mmol/L in allopurinol group; MD 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.15; low-quality evidence). The study did not assess tophus regression, pain reduction or disability or health-related quality of life impact. The study reported no adverse events and no participant withdrawal due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While dietary supplements may be widely used for gout, this review has shown a paucity of high-quality evidence assessing dietary supplementation.

Electrotherapy modalities for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder).

BACKGROUND: Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is a common condition characterised by spontaneous onset of pain, progressive restriction of movement of the shoulder and disability that restricts activities of daily living, work and leisure. Electrotherapy modalities, which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, thermal) into the body, are often delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one in a series of reviews which form an update of the Cochrane review 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities, delivered alone or in combination with other interventions, for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and the ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) clinical trials registries up to May 2014, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials to identify any other potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials using a quasi-randomised method of allocation that included adults with adhesive capsulitis and compared any electrotherapy modality to placebo, no treatment, a different electrotherapy modality, or any other intervention. The two main questions of the review focused on whether electrotherapy modalities are effective compared to placebo or no treatment, or if they are an effective adjunct to manual therapy or exercise (or both). The main outcomes of interest were participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, overall pain, function, global assessment of treatment success, active shoulder abduction, quality of life, and the number of participants experiencing any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials (1249 participants) were included in the review. Four trials reported using an adequate method of allocation concealment and six trials blinded participants and personnel. Only two electrotherapy modalities (low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF)) have been compared to placebo. No trial has compared an electrotherapy modality plus manual therapy and exercise to manual therapy and exercise alone. The two main questions of the review were investigated in nine trials.Low quality evidence from one trial (40 participants) indicated that LLLT for six days may result in improvement at six days. Eighty per cent (16/20) of participants reported treatment success with LLLT compared with 10% (2/20) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11 to 30.34; absolute risk difference 70%, 95% CI 48% to 92%). No participants in either group reported adverse events.We were uncertain whether PEMF for two weeks improved pain or function more than placebo at two weeks because of the very low quality evidence from one trial (32 participants). Seventy-five per cent (15/20) of participants reported pain relief of 30% or more with PEMF compared with 0% (0/12) of participants receiving placebo (RR 19.19, 95% CI 1.25 to 294.21; absolute risk difference 75%, 95% CI 53% to 97%). Fifty-five per cent (11/20) of participants reported total recovery of joint function with PEMF compared with 0% (0/12) of participants receiving placebo (RR 14.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 221.75; absolute risk difference 55%, 95% CI 31 to 79).Moderate quality evidence from one trial (63 participants) indicated that LLLT plus exercise for eight weeks probably results in greater improvement when measured at the fourth week of treatment, but a similar number of adverse events, compared with placebo plus exercise. The mean pain score at four weeks was 51 points with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise the mean pain score was 32 points on a 100 point scale (mean difference (MD) 19 points, 95% CI 15 to 23; absolute risk difference 19%, 95% CI 15% to 23%). The mean function impairment score was 48 points with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise the mean function impairment score was 36 points on a 100 point scale (MD 12 points, 95% CI 6 to 18; absolute risk difference 12%, 95% CI 6 to 18). Mean active abduction was 70 degrees with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise mean active abduction was 79 degrees (MD 9 degrees, 95% CI 2 to 16; absolute risk difference 5%, 95% CI 1% to 9%). No participants in either group reported adverse events. LLLT's benefits on function were maintained at four months.Based on very low quality evidence from six trials, we were uncertain whether therapeutic ultrasound, PEMF, continuous short wave diathermy, Iodex phonophoresis, a combination of Iodex iontophoresis with continuous short wave diathermy, or a combination of therapeutic ultrasound with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) were effective adjuncts to exercise. Based on low or very low quality evidence from 12 trials, we were uncertain whether a diverse range of electrotherapy modalities (delivered alone or in combination with manual therapy, exercise, or other active interventions) were more or less effective than other active interventions (for example glucocorticoid injection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based upon low quality evidence from one trial, LLLT for six days may be more effective than placebo in terms of global treatment success at six days. Based upon moderate quality evidence from one trial, LLLT plus exercise for eight weeks may be more effective than exercise alone in terms of pain up to four weeks, and function up to four months. It is unclear whether PEMF is more or less effective than placebo, or whether other electrotherapy modalities are an effective adjunct to exercise. Further high quality randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the benefits and harms of physical therapy interventions (that comprise electrotherapy modalities, manual therapy and exercise, and are reflective of clinical practice) compared to interventions with evidence of benefit (for example glucocorticoid injection or arthrographic joint distension).

Manual therapy and exercise for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder).

BACKGROUND: Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is commonly treated by manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain.' OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of patients with adhesive capsulitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to May 2013, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with adhesive capsulitis, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention versus placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention. Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercise, delivered alone or in combination. Trials investigating the primary or adjunct effect of a combination of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, overall pain (mean or mean change), function, global assessment of treatment success, active shoulder abduction, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (1836 participants). No trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus placebo or no intervention. Seven trials compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise versus other interventions but were clinically heterogeneous, so opportunities for meta-analysis were limited. The overall impression gained from these trials is that the few outcome differences between interventions that were clinically important were detected only up to seven weeks. Evidence of moderate quality shows that a combination of manual therapy and exercise for six weeks probably results in less improvement at seven weeks but a similar number of adverse events compared with glucocorticoid injection. The mean change in pain with glucocorticoid injection was 58 points on a 100-point scale, and 32 points with manual therapy and exercise (mean difference (MD) 26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15 points to 37 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 26% (15% to 37%). Mean change in function with glucocorticoid injection was 39 points on a 100-point scale, and 14 points with manual therapy and exercise (MD 25 points, 95% CI 35 points to 15 points; one RCT, 107 participants), for an absolute difference of 25% (15% to 35%). Forty-six per cent (26/56) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 77% (40/52) of participants receiving glucocorticoid injection (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; one RCT, 108 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 30% (13% to 48%). The number reporting adverse events did not differ between groups: 56% (32/57) reported events with manual therapy and exercise, and 53% (30/57) with glucocorticoid injection (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; one RCT, 114 participants), with an absolute risk difference of 4% (-15% to 22%). Group differences in improvement in overall pain and function at six months and 12 months were not clinically important.We are uncertain of the effect of other combinations of manual therapy and exercise, as most evidence is of low quality. Meta-analysis of two trials (86 participants) suggested no clinically important differences between a combination of manual therapy, exercise, and electrotherapy for four weeks and placebo injection compared with glucocorticoid injection alone or placebo injection alone in terms of overall pain, function, active range of motion and quality of life at six weeks, six months and 12 months (though the 95% CI suggested function may be better with glucocorticoid injection at six weeks). The same two trials found that adding a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy for four weeks to glucocorticoid injection did not confer clinically important benefits over glucocorticoid injection alone at each time point. Based on one high quality trial (148 participants), following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, a combination of manual therapy and supervised exercise for six weeks conferred similar effects to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life at six weeks and at six months, but provided greater patient-reported treatment success and active shoulder abduction at six weeks. One trial (119 participants) found that a combination of manual therapy, exercise, electrotherapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for three weeks did not confer clinically important benefits over oral NSAID alone in terms of function and patient-reported treatment success at three weeks.On the basis of 25 clinically heterogeneous trials, we are uncertain of the effect of manual therapy or exercise when not delivered together, or one type of manual therapy or exercise versus another, as most reported differences between groups were not clinically or statistically significant, and the evidence is mostly of low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The best available data show that a combination of manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as glucocorticoid injection in the short-term. It is unclear whether a combination of manual therapy, exercise and electrotherapy is an effective adjunct to glucocorticoid injection or oral NSAID. Following arthrographic joint distension with glucocorticoid and saline, manual therapy and exercise may confer effects similar to those of sham ultrasound in terms of overall pain, function and quality of life, but may provide greater patient-reported treatment success and active range of motion. High-quality RCTs are needed to establish the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise interventions that reflect actual practice, compared with placebo, no intervention and active interventions with evidence of benefit (e.g. glucocorticoid injection).

Effect of physical therapy on pain and function in patients with hip osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: There is limited evidence supporting use of physical therapy for hip osteoarthritis. OBJECTIVE: To determine efficacy of physical therapy on pain and physical function in patients with hip osteoarthritis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, participant- and assessor-blinded trial involving 102 community volunteers with hip pain levels of 40 or higher on a visual analog scale of 100 mm (range, 0-100 mm; 100 indicates worst pain possible) and hip osteoarthritis confirmed by radiograph. Forty-nine patients in the active group and 53 in the sham group underwent 12 weeks of intervention and 24 weeks of follow-up (May 2010-February 2013) INTERVENTIONS: Participants attended 10 treatment sessions over 12 weeks. Active treatment included education and advice, manual therapy, home exercise, and gait aid if appropriate. Sham treatment included inactive ultrasound and inert gel. For 24 weeks after treatment, the active group continued unsupervised home exercise while the sham group self-applied gel 3 times weekly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were average pain (0 mm, no pain; 100 mm, worst pain possible) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, 0 no difficulty to 68 extreme difficulty) at week 13. Secondary outcomes were these measures at week 36 and impairments, physical performance, global change, psychological status, and quality of life at weeks 13 and 36. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (94%) completed week 13 measurements and 83 (81%) completed week 36 measurements. The between-group differences for improvements in pain were not significant. For the active group, the baseline mean (SD) visual analog scale score was 58.8 mm (13.3) and the week-13 score was 40.1 mm (24.6); for the sham group, the baseline score was 58.0 mm (11.6) and the week-13 score was 35.2 mm (21.4). The mean difference was 6.9 mm favoring sham treatment (95% CI, -3.9 to 17.7). The function scores were not significantly different between groups. The baseline mean (SD) physical function score for the active group was 32.3 (9.2) and the week-13 score was 27.5 (12.9) units, whereas the baseline score for the sham treatment group was 32.4 (8.4) units and the week-13 score was 26.4 (11.3) units, for a mean difference of 1.4 units favoring sham (95% CI, -3.8 to 6.5) at week 13. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes (except greater week-13 improvement in the balance step test in the active group). Nineteen of 46 patients (41%) in the active group reported 26 mild adverse effects and 7 of 49 (14%) in the sham group reported 9 mild adverse events (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with painful hip osteoarthritis, physical therapy did not result in greater improvement in pain or function compared with sham treatment, raising questions about its value for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12610000439044.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for treating lateral elbow pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm. Although self-limiting, it can be associated with significant disability and often results in work absence. It is often treated with topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a review first published in 2002 (search date October 11, 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of topical and oral NSAIDs for treating people with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SciSearch up to October 11, 2012. No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) that compared topical or oral NSAIDs with placebo or another intervention, or compared two NSAIDs in adults with lateral elbow pain. Outcomes of interest were pain, function, quality of life, pain-free grip strength, overall treatment success, work loss and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials, involving 759 participants and reporting 17 comparisons, were included in the review. Four new trials identified from the updated search were included, along with 11 of 14 trials included in the original review (three trials included in the previous review were found not to meet inclusion criteria). Of eight trials that studied topical NSAIDs (301 participants), five compared topical NSAIDs with placebo, one compared manipulative therapy and topical NSAIDs with manipulative therapy alone, one compared leech therapy with topical NSAIDs and one compared two different topical NSAIDs. Of seven trials that investigated oral NSAIDs (437 participants), two compared oral NSAIDs with placebo, one compared oral NSAIDs and bandaging with bandaging alone, three compared oral NSAIDs with glucocorticoid injection, one compared oral NSAIDs with a vasodilator and two compared two different oral NSAIDs. No trials directly compared topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs. Few trials used intention-to-treat analysis, and the sample size of most was small. The median follow-up was 2 weeks (range 1 week to 1 year).Low-quality evidence was obtained from three trials (153 participants) suggesting that topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo with respect to pain in the short term (mean difference -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.42 to -0.86) and number needed to treat to benefit (7 (95% CI 3 to 21) on a 0 to 10 scale). Low-quality evidence was obtained from one trial (85 participants) indicating that significantly more participants report fair, good or excellent effectiveness with topical NSAIDs versus placebo at 28 days (14 days of therapy) (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14). No participants withdrew as the result of adverse events, but some studies reported mild adverse effects such as rash in 2.5% of those exposed to topical NSAIDs compared with 1.3% of those exposed to placebo.Low-quality and conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of oral NSAIDs obtained from two trials could not be pooled. One trial found significantly greater improvement in pain compared with placebo, and the other trial found no between-group differences; neither trial found differences in function. One trial reported a withdrawal due to adverse effects for a participant in the NSAIDs group. Use of oral NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo in one trial in the review. Another trial reported discontinuation of treatment due to gastrointestinal side effects in four participants taking NSAIDs, and another participant developed an allergic reaction in response to oral NSAIDs.Very scant and conflicting evidence regarding the comparative effects of oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injection was obtained. One trial reported a significant improvement in pain with glucocorticoid injection, and another found no between-group differences; treatment success was similar between groups (RR of fair, good or excellent effectiveness 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.26). Transient pain may occur following injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There remains limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the benefits or harms of topical or oral NSAIDs in treating lateral elbow pain. Although data from five placebo-controlled trials suggest that topical NSAIDs may be beneficial in improving pain (for up to 4 weeks), non-normal distribution of data and other methodological issues precluded firm conclusions. Some people may expect a mild transient skin rash. Evidence about the benefits of oral NSAIDs has been conflicting, although oral NSAID use may result in gastrointestinal adverse effects in some people. No direct comparisons between oral and topical NSAIDs were available. Some trials demonstrated greater benefit from glucocorticoid injection than from NSAIDs in the short term, but this was not apparent in all studies and was not apparent by 6 months in the only study that included longer-term outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of injection therapies in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Injection therapy with glucocorticoids has been used since the 1950s as a treatment strategy for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). Lately, several novel injection therapies have become available. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of injection therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing different injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis were included provided they contained data for change in pain intensity (primary outcome). Trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Network (random effects) meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence within and across trial data using the final end point reported in the trials, and results for the arm-based network analyses are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs). RESULTS: Seventeen trials (1381 participants; 3 [18%] at low risk of bias) assessing injection with 8 different treatments-glucocorticoid (10 trials), botulinum toxin (4 trials), autologous blood (3 trials), platelet-rich plasma (2 trials), and polidocanol, glycosaminoglycan, prolotherapy, and hyaluronic acid (1 trial each)-were included. Pooled results (SMD [95% confidence interval]) showed that beyond 8 weeks, glucocorticoid injection was no more effective than placebo (-0.04 [-0.45 to 0.35]), but only 1 trial (which did not include a placebo arm) was at low risk of bias. Although botulinum toxin showed marginal benefit (-0.50 [-0.91 to -0.08]), it caused temporary paresis of finger extension, and all trials were at high risk of bias. Both autologous blood (-1.43 [-2.15 to -0.71]) and platelet-rich plasma (-1.13 [-1.77 to -0.49]) were also statistically superior to placebo, but only 1 trial was at low risk of bias. Prolotherapy (-2.71 [-4.60 to -0.82]) and hyaluronic acid (-5.58 [-6.35 to -4.82]) were both more efficacious than placebo, whereas polidocanol (0.39 [-0.42 to 1.20]) and glycosaminoglycan (-0.32 [-1.02 to 0.38]) showed no effect compared with placebo. The criteria for low risk of bias were only met by the prolotherapy and polidocanol trials. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found a paucity of evidence from unbiased trials on which to base treatment recommendations regarding injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis.