Effectiveness of non-invasive therapies on pain, maximum grip strength, disability, and quality of life for lateral elbow tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow tendinopathy is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Effectiveness of non-invasive therapies for this health condition are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of non-invasive therapies on pain, maximum grip strength, disability, and quality of life for lateral elbow tendinopathy. METHODS: Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions up to May 3rd, 2023. Randomized trials investigating the effectiveness of any non-invasive therapy compared with control or other invasive interventions were included. Two independent reviewers screened eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included trials and certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-two different therapies investigated in 47 randomized trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Moderate certainty evidence showed that betamethasone valerate medicated plaster may reduce disability (mean difference -6.7; 95% CI -11.4, -2.0) in the short-term when compared with placebo. Low certainty evidence showed that acupuncture may reduce disability (MD -9.1; 95% CI -11.7, -6.4) in the short-term when compared with sham. Moderate to very low certainty of evidence also showed small to no effect of non-invasive therapies on pain intensity, maximum grip strength, and disability outcomes in the short-term compared to control or invasive interventions. Most therapies had only very low certainty of evidence to support their use. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making processes for lateral elbow tendinopathy should be carefully evaluated, taking into consideration that most investigated interventions have very low certainty of evidence. There is an urgent call for larger high-quality trials.

Prevention of low back and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with GRADE recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Low back (LBP) and pelvic girdle pain (PGP) during pregnancy are related to high direct and indirect costs. It is important to clarify evidence regarding interventions to manage and prevent these conditions. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the efficacy and acceptability of the interventions to prevent LBP and PGP during pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted up to January 6th, 2021 in the MEDLINE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, AMED, Embase and PsycInfo databases STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) Pregnant women without LBP and/or PGP; (2) any prevention strategy on incidence of LBP and PGP and sick leave; (3) comparison to control; (4) quasi and randomised controlled trial. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers performed screening, data extraction and methodological quality assessments. Meta-analysis was performed and Relative Risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials involving 2231 participants were included in the review. Evidence of moderate quality was found that "stand-alone" exercise is acceptable to pregnant women with lumbopelvic pain (LBPP) (RR 0.60 [95%CI 0.42-0.84]) and prevents episodes of LBP (RR 0.92 [95%CI 0.85-0.99]) in the long-term. Moderate to very-low quality evidence was found detailing the lack of efficacy of other interventions in the prevention of these problems in the short and long-term. LIMITATIONS: Small number of trials included. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of prevention strategies for episodes of LBPP and the use of sick leave during pregnancy is not supported by evidence of high quality. Current evidence suggests that exercise is acceptable and promising for the prevention of LBP in the long-term. However, further high-quality trials with larger samples are needed. CONTRIBUTION ON PAPER.

Efficacy of Hip Strengthening on Pain Intensity, Disability, and Strength in Musculoskeletal Conditions of the Trunk and Lower Limbs: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Grade Recommendations.

To investigate the efficacy of hip strengthening on pain, disability, and hip abductor strength in musculoskeletal conditions of the trunk and lower limbs, we searched eight databases for randomized controlled trials up to 8 March 2022 with no date or language restrictions. Random-effect models estimated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Very low quality evidence suggested short-term effects (≤3 months) of hip strengthening on pain intensity (MD of 4.1, 95% CI: 2.1 to 6.2; two trials, n = 48 participants) and on hip strength (MD = 3.9 N, 95% CI: 2.8 to 5.1; two trials, n = 48 participants) in patellofemoral pain when compared with no intervention. Uncertain evidence suggested that hip strengthening enhances the short-term effect of the other active interventions on pain intensity and disability in low back pain (MD = -0.6 points, 95% CI: 0.1 to 1.2; five trials, n = 349 participants; MD = 6.2 points, 95% CI: 2.6 to 9.8; six trials, n = 389 participants, respectively). Scarce evidence does not provide reliable evidence of the efficacy of hip strengthening in musculoskeletal conditions of the trunk and lower limbs.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia: Protocol for a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called "Control". The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. REGISTRATION: OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Effectiveness of conservative therapy on pain, disability and quality of life for low back pain in pregnancy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of conservative therapy for low back pain in pregnancy (PLBP) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of conservative therapy on pain, disability, and quality of life in PLBP. METHODS: The protocol of this systematic review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020164640). Search strategy was conducted on six databases up to August 24 2020 without date or language restrictions. Minimal intervention (i.e., placebo, sham, waiting list or no intervention) was the comparator of interest. Selection of randomized controlled trials, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of included trials were conducted independently by two reviewers. The PEDro scale (0-10) was used to assess methodological quality. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled when possible, using random-effects models. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Ten included trials provide uncertain evidence (low to very low quality) about the effects of auriculotherapy, education, exercise, exercise plus education, oil treatment, and osteopathy in pain, disability, and quality of life at short- and long-term. At short-term, mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on a 0-10 points pain intensity scale were: for oil treatment, 2.8 points (2.6, 3.1) (n = one trial, 114 participants); for auriculotherapy, 1.6 points (1.2, 2.0) (n = one trial, 112 participants); for exercise, 2.2 points (-1.8, 6.2) (n = three trials, 297 participants). CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for larger high-quality trials investigating effects of conservative therapy in pain, disability, and quality of life in this population.

Popular videos related to low back pain on YouTube™ do not reflect current clinical guidelines: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Quality of low back pain (LBP) information offered on YouTube ™ is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current low back pain information available on YouTube ™ and determine if these videos report information that aligns with clinical guidelines. Further analysis explored whether specific features of the videos explain their popularity. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on videos related to LBP on YouTube™ with the 200 most viewed videos using the term "low back pain." The videos were independently viewed and assessed by two researchers for specific video characteristics, LBP specific content, and compliance with guidelines. The association between video characteristics or content with popularity (i.e., views, likes, dislikes, and comments) was investigated using regression models. RESULTS: The median number of views was 2 018 167. Only 59 (29.5%) of the videos reported at least one diagnostic recommendation from clinical guidelines, and only 100 (50%) reported a treatment recommendation that aligned with clinical guidelines. Apart from year of upload, no variables were identified that were independently associated with popularity or engagement of the videos. CONCLUSION: The information related to LBP offered on YouTube™ is often not evidence-based and there is the tendency to prioritize information on interventions rather than understanding the LBP process. Factors related to engagement with content about LBP on YouTube™ remains uncertain, indicating further need for knowledge translation in this field.