Physical Therapist Interventions to Reduce Headache Intensity, Frequency, and Duration in Patients With Cervicogenic Headache: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of physical therapist interventions on the intensity, frequency, and duration of headaches, as well as on the quality of life of patients with cervicogenic headache. METHODS: The following databases were searched up to October 2022: Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of physical therapist interventions on adults with cervicogenic headache were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis web app. Synthesis methods were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook. RESULTS: Of the 28 identified reports, 23 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Manipulation plus dry needling was the highest-ranked intervention to reduce the short-term headache intensity (mean difference [MD] = -4.87; 95% CI = -8.51 to -1.24) and frequency (MD = -3.09; 95% CI = -4.93 to -1.25) when compared to a control intervention. Other high-ranked and clinically effective interventions (when compared to a control intervention) were muscle-energy technique plus exercise (MD = 4.37; 95% CI = -8.01 to -0.74), as well as soft tissue techniques plus exercise (MD = -3.01; 95% CI = -5.1 to -0.92) to reduce short-term headache intensity, and dry needling plus exercise (MD = -2.92; 95% CI = -4.73 to -1.11) to reduce short-term headache frequency. These results were based on a low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: The 4 most highly ranked interventions can be considered in clinical practice. However, no conclusive recommendation can be made due to the low certainty of evidence. IMPACT: Combined interventions such as spinal joint manipulation plus dry needling and muscle-energy technique or soft tissue techniques or dry needling plus exercises seem to be the best interventions to reduce short-term cervicogenic headache intensity and/or frequency.

Therapeutic Exercise Parameters, Considerations, and Recommendations for Migraine Treatment: An International Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to reach consensus about the best exercise prescription parameters, the most relevant considerations, and other recommendations that could be useful for prescribing exercise to patients with migraine. METHODS: This was an international study conducted between April 9, 2022 and June 30, 2022. An expert panel of health care and exercise professionals was assembled, and a 3-round Delphi survey was performed. Consensus was reached for each item if an Aiken V Validity Index ≥ 0.7 was obtained. RESULTS: The study included 14 experts who reached consensus on 42 items by the third round. The most approved prescription parameters were 30 to 60 minutes of exercise per session, 3 days per week of moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise, and relaxation and breathing exercises for 5 to 20 minutes every day. When considering an exercise prescription, initial exercise supervision should progress to patient self-regulation; catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, headache-related disability, anxiety, depression, physical activity baseline level, and self-efficacy could influence the patients' exercise participation and efficacy; and gradual exposure to exercise could help improve these psychological variables and increase exercise efficacy. Yoga and concurrent exercise were also included as recommended interventions. CONCLUSION: From the experts in the study, exercise prescriptions should be adapted to patients with migraine considering different exercise modalities, such as moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, relaxation, yoga, and concurrent exercise, based on the patients' preferences and psychological considerations, level of physical activity, and possible adverse effects. IMPACT: The consensus reached by the experts can help prescribe exercise accurately to patients with migraine. Offering various exercise modalities can improve exercise participation in this population. The evaluation of the patients' psychological and physical status can also facilitate the adaptation of the exercise prescription to their abilities and diminish the risk of adverse events.

[Effectiveness of physiotherapeutic treatment interventions on pain intensity, duration, frequency, and quality of life of patients with migraine : A systematic review]. / Effektivität physiotherapeutischer Behandlungsmaßnahmen in Bezug auf die Schmerzintensität, -dauer und -frequenz sowie Lebensqualität von Patient*innen mit Migräne : Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: According to the current guidelines preventive treatment of migraine should consist of a combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment. Physiotherapeutic modalities could be an option for nonpharmacological migraine management. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the efficacy of physiotherapeutic interventions on pain intensity, duration and frequency as well as the quality of life of patients with migraine. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in four databases: the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Web of Science, Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published up to the end of July 2021 and examined the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic treatment in migraine patients were eligible for inclusion. Studies that did not examine an adult population, interventions not carried out by a physiotherapist or not reporting an appropriate outcome were excluded. The assessment of the risk of bias was carried out with the revised version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. A descriptive and quantitative synthesis using mean difference with a random effects model and 95% confidence intervals were used. RESULTS: The present review included 13 RCTs reporting on a total of 595 patients. The risk of bias was high for four studies, low for two studies and the remaining seven studies had some concerns. The interventions examined were multimodal physiotherapy programs, various mobilization techniques, trigger point therapy, manual lymphatic drainage, massage and various stretching techniques. All interventions examined had a significantly positive effect on the selected parameters compared to the baseline values. Especially combinations of various physiotherapeutic modalities showed clinically relevant results. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that multimodal physiotherapy treatment is a good supplement to medication and should therefore be considered as a nonpharmacological treatment for patients with migraine; however, further RCTs with a low risk of bias are necessary in order to confirm the effectiveness with high quality evidence.

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients. SETTING: University-initiated international survey. PARTICIPANTS: The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers. PROCEDURES: The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools. RESULTS: Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).

No effect of a single session of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimentally induced pain in patients with chronic low back pain--an exploratory study.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to modulate cortical excitability. A small number of studies suggested that tDCS modulates the response to experimental pain paradigms. No trials have been conducted to evaluate the response of patients already suffering from pain, to an additional experimental pain before and after tDCS. The present study investigated the effect of a single session of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation (15 mins/1 mA) over the primary motor cortex on the perceived intensity of repeated noxious thermal and electrical stimuli and on elements of quantitative sensory testing (thermal pain and perception thresholds) applied to the right hand in 15 patients with chronic low back pain. The study was conducted in a double-blind sham-controlled and cross-over design. No significant alterations of pain ratings were found. Modalities of quantitative sensory testing remained equally unchanged. It is therefore hypothesized that a single 15 mins session of tDCS at 1 mA may not be sufficient to alter the perception of experimental pain and in patients with chronic pain. Further studies applying repetitive tDCS to patients with chronic pain are required to fully answer the question whether experimental pain perception may be influenced by tDCS over the motor cortex.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of clinical and experimentally induced pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation on clinical and experimental pain, and to identify the most beneficial stimulation parameters. METHODS: Predefined search using key terms of information sources including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAB Abstracts, and PsychINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PeDRO databases; reference lists of retrieved articles, journal contents, and conference proceedings. Two reviewers independently searched and evaluated publications. English and non-English controlled trials that applied direct current stimulation to the brain published before September 30, 2010 were included. Studies using magnetic stimulation or pulsed currents were excluded. RESULTS: Trials investigating experimental pain in healthy participants (n=6) used a wide variety of stimulation and outcome parameters that did not allow a synthesis across outcome parameters. Trials investigating chronic pain (n=8) used anodal motor cortex stimulation of 1 or 2 mA intensity, either as a single dose or on a maximum of 10 consecutive days. Four trials on chronic pain were excluded due to a high risk of bias. A meta-analysis of 4 trials on chronic pain found a pooled effect size of -2.29 with a 95% confidence interval of -3.5 to -1.08. This effect does just reach minimal clinically important difference recommendations. DISCUSSION: The level of evidence for the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in experimental and chronic pain reduction is low. Evidence from high quality randomized controlled trials is required before this treatment should be recommended.

Effectiveness of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain: design, method and protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation of central nervous system areas with surgically implanted stimulators has been shown to result in pain relief. To avoid the risks and side effects of surgery, transcranial direct current stimulation is an option to electrically stimulate the motor cortex through the skull. Previous research has shown that transcranial direct current stimulation relieves pain in patients with fibromyalgia, chronic neuropathic pain and chronic pelvic pain. Evidence indicates that the method is pain free, safe and inexpensive. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex for pain reduction in patients with chronic low back pain. It will also investigate whether transcranial direct current stimulation as a prior treatment enhances the symptom reduction achieved by a cognitive-behavioural group intervention. Participants will be randomised to receive a series of 5 days of transcranial direct current stimulation (2 mA, 20 mins) or 20 mins of sham stimulation; followed by a cognitive-behavioural group programme. The primary outcome parameters will measure pain (Visual Analog Scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcome parameters will include the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, the Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (perceived function), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, bothersomeness and Health Related Quality of Life (SF 36), as well as Patient-Perceived Satisfactory Improvement. Assessments will take place immediately prior to the first application of transcranial direct current stimulation or sham, after 5 consecutive days of stimulation, immediately after the cognitive-behavioural group programme and at 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks follow-up. DISCUSSION: This trial will help to determine, whether transcranial direct current stimulation is an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain and whether it can further enhance the effects of a cognitive behavioural pain management programme.