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.

Feasibility, Usability, and Implementation Context of an Internet-Based Pain Education and Exercise Program for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Pilot Trial of the ReabilitaDOR Program.

BACKGROUND: Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet. METHODS: The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users' implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439.

Effectiveness of virtual reality in children and young adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is one of the main causes of disability in childhood. Virtual reality (VR) has been used as a treatment option in this population, however its effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of VR in patients with CP. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, PEDro, AMED, PsycoINFO, and LILACS databases and trial site registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We included randomized controlled trials that tested the use of VR alone or in combination with other interventions compared to more conventional rehabilitation or usual care in individuals with CP. The primary outcomes were upper and lower limb function, postural control, and balance. The secondary outcomes included global motor function, perception, cognition and spatial functions, motivation, motor learning, and adverse events. Two independent reviewers extracted and assessed included articles for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We use a meta-analysis with random effect model whenever possible. We analyzed the quality of evidence using theGRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 38 trials (pooled n = 1233 participants) in this review. There is very low quality of evidence that VR plus conventional rehabilitation is better than conventional rehabilitation for upper limb function. There is also very low quality evidence that VR alone is no better than conventional rehabilitation for upper and lower limb function. No adverse events were observed among the 10 trials that provided information on this outcome. CONCLUSION: At present we have very limited to limited confidence in effect estimation for utilization of VR in this population. Future studies may change our confidence in results and effect estimates. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42018102759.

The contemporary management of nonspecific lower back pain.

Low back pain (LBP) is extremely common and causes an enormous burden on the society. This perspective article aims to provide an evidence-based summary in the field of LBP. More specifically, we aimed to present epidemiological data on cost, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and interventions for patients with LBP. It is critical that both clinicians and policymakers follow best practices by using high-value care for patients with LBP. In addition, nonevidence-based procedures must be immediately abandoned. These actions are likely to reduce societal costs and will improve the quality of life of these patients.