RESUMEN
We appreciate the interest in our article A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine: "Miscellaneous Therapies" published in Animals, Volume 11 [...].
RESUMEN
Soft tissue mobilization is frequently used in the treatment of sport and companion animals. There is, however, uncertainty regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of these methods. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the evidence for clinical effects of massage and stretching in cats, dogs, and horses. A bibliographic search, restricted to studies in cats, dogs, and horses, was performed on Web of Science Core Collection, CABI, and PubMed. Relevant articles were assessed for scientific quality, and information was extracted on study characteristics, species, type of treatment, indication, and treatment effects. Of 1189 unique publications screened, 11 were eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed as high in eight of the studies and moderate in three of the studies, two of the latter indicating a decreased heart rate after massage. There was considerable heterogeneity in reported treatment effects. Therefore, the scientific evidence is not strong enough to define the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of massage and stretching in sport and companion animals.
RESUMEN
Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980-2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.
RESUMEN
There is an increasing interest in complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM). There is, however, an uncertainty of the efficacy of these methods. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the evidence for clinical efficacy of 24 CAVM therapies used in cats, dogs, and horses. A bibliographic search, restricted to studies in cats, dogs, and horses, was performed on Web of Science Core Collection, CABI, and PubMed. Relevant articles were assessed for scientific quality, and information was extracted on study characteristics, species, type of treatment, indication, and treatment effects. Of 982 unique publications screened, 42 were eligible for inclusion, representing nine different CAVM therapies, which were aromatherapy, gold therapy, homeopathy, leeches (hirudotherapy), mesotherapy, mud, neural therapy, sound (music) therapy, and vibration therapy. For 15 predefined therapies, no study was identified. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 17 studies, moderate to high in 10, moderate in 10, low to moderate in four, and low in one study. In those studies where the risk of bias was low to moderate, there was considerable heterogeneity in reported treatment effects. Therefore, the scientific evidence is not strong enough to define the clinical efficacy of the 24 CAVM therapies.