Effectiveness of kinesio taping for chronic stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Kinesio taping (KT) is an approach that has been used in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic stroke. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of KT alone or combined with other interventions for patients with chronic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed on CENTRAL, EMBASE, PEDro, and five other databases and two trial registries up to July 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of KT compared to control interventions. The primary outcomes were upper limb function and gait. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the PEDro scale. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs undertaken in six different countries. PEDro score ranged from 4 to 9 points. There is very-low certainty evidence that KT has no effect on gait, balance, and postural control. We found very-low certainty evidence of a slightly benefit when used in addition to other therapies for gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings show KT does not have enough robust evidence for improving upper limb function, gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity in chronic stroke patients.Implications for rehabilitationKinesio taping (KT) is a method that has gained popularity among some health professionals to treat patients poststroke.There is very-low certainty evidence that KT alone has no effect on gait, balance and postural control compared to no treatment.There is very-low certainty evidence that KT plus other therapies may be slightly beneficial for gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity intervention.Only one study reported there were no adverse events such as skin reactions or local ulceration for patients poststroke.

Is there an association between diabetes and neck and back pain? A systematic review with meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Approximately half of the population will experience either low back pain or neck pain, at some point in their lives. Previous studies suggest that people with diabetes are more likely to present with chronic somatic pain, including shoulder, knee and spinal pain. This study aimed to systematically review and appraise the literature to explore the magnitude as well as the nature of the association between diabetes and back, neck, or spinal (back and neck) pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: A systematic search was performed using the Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science electronic databases. Studies which assessed the association between diabetes and back or neck pain outcomes, in participants older than 18 years of age were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data on the incidence of pain and reported associations. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses showed that people with diabetes are more likely to report low back pain [5 studies; n: 131,431; odds ratio (OR): 1.35; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.20 to 1.52; p<0.001] and neck pain (2 studies; n: 6,560; OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.47; p = 0.01) compared to those without diabetes. Results from one longitudinal cohort study suggested that diabetes is not associated with the risk of developing future neck, low back or spinal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is associated with low back and neck individually, and spinal pain. The longitudinal analysis showed no association between the conditions. Our results suggest that diabetes co-exists with back pain; however, a direct causal link between diabetes and back pain was not established. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42016050738.

Effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions in the management of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as a potential alternative to deliver interventions for low back pain (LBP); however, its effectiveness has not been investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate whether interventions delivered by telehealth improve pain, disability, function, and quality of life in non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from the earliest records to August 2015. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions, solo or in combination with other interventions, for non-specific LBP compared with a control group. Trials deemed clinically homogeneous were grouped in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (n=2,280). In chronic LBP, telehealth interventions had no significant effect on pain at short-term follow-up (four trials: 1,089 participants, weighted mean difference [WMD]: -2.61 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.23 to 0.01) or medium-term follow-up (two trials: 441 participants, WMD: -0.94 points, 95% CI: -6.71 to 4.84) compared with a control group. Similarly, there was no significant effect for disability. Results from three individual trials showed that telehealth was superior to a control intervention for improving quality of life. Interventions combining telehealth and usual care were more beneficial than usual care alone in people with recent onset of LBP symptoms. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that current telehealth interventions, alone, are not more effective than minimal interventions for reducing pain and disability in chronic LBP. To date, modern telehealth media (eg, apps) and telehealth as an adjunct to usual care remain understudied.