Effectiveness of electrotherapy for the treatment of orofacial pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials and controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of electrotherapy in the treatment of patients with orofacial pain. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Embase, CINAHL PLUS with Full text, Cochrane Library Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: A data search (last update, July 1, 2022) and a manual search were performed (October 5, 2022). Trials involving adults with orofacial pain receiving electrotherapy compared with any other type of treatment were included. The main outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes were mouth opening and tenderness. The reporting was based on the new PRISMA Guidelines. RESULTS: From the electronics databases and manual search 43 studies were included. Although this study was open to including any type of orofacial pain, only studies that investigated temporomandibular disorders were found. The overall quality of the evidence for pain intensity was very low. Although the results should be carefully used, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation therapy showed to be clinically superior to placebo for reducing pain after treatment (2.63 [-0.48; 5.74]) and at follow-up (0.96 [-0.02; 1.95]) and reduce tenderness after treatment (1.99 [-0.33; 4.32]) and at follow-up (2.43 [-0.24; 5.10]) in subjects with mixed temporomandibular disorders. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review support the use of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation therapy for patients with mixed temporomandibular disorders to improve pain intensity, and tenderness demonstrating that transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation is superior to placebo. There is inconsistent evidence supporting the superiority of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation against other therapies.

Performance, Detection, Contamination, Compliance, and Cointervention Biases in Rehabilitation Research: What Are They and How Can They Affect the Results of Randomized Controlled Trials? Basic Information for Junior Researchers and Clinicians.

ABSTRACT: Bias is a systematic error that can cause distorted results leading to incorrect conclusions. Intervention bias (i.e., contamination bias, cointervention bias, compliance bias, and performance bias) and detection bias are the most common biases in rehabilitation research. A better understanding of these biases is essential at all stages of research to enhance the quality of evidence in rehabilitation trials. Therefore, this narrative review aims to provide insights to the readers, clinicians, and researchers about contamination, cointervention, compliance, performance, and detection biases and ways of recognizing and mitigating them. The literature selected for this review was obtained mainly by compiling the information from several reviews looking at biases in rehabilitation. In addition, separate searches by biases and looking at reference lists of selected studies as well as using Scopus forward citation for relevant references were used.This review provides several strategies to guard against the impact of bias on study results. Clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to apply these recommendations when designing and conducting rehabilitation trials.

MRI in migraineurs: are there abnormalities in the area where the myofascial trigger points are palpable and in volume measurements?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with migraine may present a higher quantity of myofascial trigger points (MTrP) and alterations in the cervical muscles when compared to non-migraineurs. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a robust method for the study of human soft tissues and could be useful to investigate these points. OBJECTIVES: To identify the presence of MTrP in the descending fibers of the trapezius muscle in women with migraine and to quantify the muscle volume by MRI, correlating it with the headache characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional analytic study was conducted among 14 women, eight in migraine group, and six in without migraine group. The presence of MTrP was evaluated using Simons' criteria, and linolenic acid capsules subsequently marked the areas. MRI was performed with 1.5T, T1-weighted sequence, and T2 in the axial, sagittal, and coronal planes. The T1-weighted sequences were performed with and without gadolinium contrast. RESULTS: The T1-weighted image analysis with and without gadolinium did not show any signal alteration in the MTrP areas in both groups. The migraine group presented more MTrP in the trapezius muscle (MD [95%CI] = 1[1; 3]; MD [95%CI] = 1[0; 2] right and left side, respectively), and a smaller muscle volume (MD [95%CI] = -198.1[-338.7;-25.6], MD [95%CI] = -149.9[-325.05;-0.13] right and left side, respectively) than non-migraineurs. The migraine frequency presented a negative strong correlation with the trapezius volumes (r = -0.812; p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Migraineurs present more MTrP and a smaller muscle volume than non-migraineurs. The trapezius volume is negatively correlated with migraine frequency. MRI is not a suitable outcome measure for assessing MTrP.