Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) could affect multiple facets of their daily functioning. Cognitive rehabilitation brings about clinically significant improvement in certain cognitive skills. However, it is uncertain if these improved cognitive skills lead to betterments in other key aspects of daily living. We evaluated whether cognitive rehabilitation for people with TBI improves return to work, independence in daily activities, community integration and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of cognitive rehabilitation on return to work, independence in daily activities, community integration (occupational outcomes) and quality of life in people with traumatic brain injury, and to determine which cognitive rehabilitation strategy better achieves these outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and clinical trials registries up to 30 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all available randomized controlled trials of cognitive rehabilitation compared with any other non-pharmacological intervention for people with TBI. We included studies that reported at least one outcome related to : return to work, independence in activities of daily living (ADL), community integration and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated heterogeneity among the included studies and performed meta-analysis only when we could include more than one study in a comparison. We used the online computer programme GRADEpro to assess the quality of evidence, and generate 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 790 participants. Three trials (160 participants) compared cognitive rehabilitation versus no treatment, four trials (144 participants) compared cognitive rehabilitation versus conventional treatment, one trial (120 participants) compared hospital-based cognitive rehabilitation versus home programme and one trial (366 participants) compared one cognitive strategy versus another. Among the included studies, we judged three to be of low risk of bias.There was no difference between cognitive rehabilitation and no intervention in return to work (risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 4.39, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference between biweekly cognitive rehabilitation for eight weeks and no treatment in community integration (Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale): mean difference (MD) -2.90, 95% CI -12.57 to 6.77, 1 study; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in quality of life between cognitive rehabilitation and no intervention immediately following the 12-week intervention(MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.78, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No study reported effects on independence in ADL.There was no difference between cognitive rehabilitation and conventional treatment in return to work status at six months' follow-up in one study (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.33; low-quality evidence); independence in ADL at three to four weeks' follow-up in two studies (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.61; very low-quality evidence); community integration at three weeks' to six months' follow-up in three studies (Community Integration Questionnaire: MD 0.05, 95% CI -1.51 to 1.62; low-quality evidence) and quality of life at six months' follow-up in one study (Perceived Quality of Life scale: MD 6.50, 95% CI -2.57 to 15.57; moderate-quality evidence).For active duty military personnel with moderate-to-severe closed head injury, there was no difference between eight weeks of cognitive rehabilitation administered as a home programme and hospital-based cognitive rehabilitation in achieving return to work at one year' follow-up in one study (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.05; moderate-quality evidence). The study did not report effects on independence in ADL, community integration or quality of life.There was no difference between one cognitive rehabilitation strategy (cognitive didactic) and another (functional experiential) for adult veterans or active duty military service personnel with moderate-to-severe TBI (one study with 366 participants and one year' follow-up) on return to work (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46; moderate-quality evidence), or on independence in ADL (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; low-quality evidence). The study did not report effects on community integration or quality of life.None of the studies reported adverse effects of cognitive rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence to support the role of cognitive rehabilitation when compared to no intervention or conventional rehabilitation in improving return to work, independence in ADL, community integration or quality of life in adults with TBI. There is moderate-quality evidence that cognitive rehabilitation provided as a home programme is similar to hospital-based cognitive rehabilitation in improving return to work status among active duty military personnel with moderate-to-severe TBI. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that one cognitive rehabilitation strategy (cognitive didactic) is no better than another (functional experiential) in achieving return to work in veterans or military personnel with TBI.

Injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Plantar heel pain, commonly resulting from plantar fasciitis, often results in significant morbidity. Treatment options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), orthoses, physical therapy, physical agents (e.g. extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), laser) and invasive procedures including steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, clinical trials registries and conference proceedings. Latest search: 27 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of plantar heel pain in adults were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome measures. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was significant, when a random-effects model was considered. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 39 studies (36 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 quasi-RCTs) that involved a total of 2492 adults. Most studies were small (median = 59 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 34 years to 59 years. When reported, most participants had heel pain for several months. The trials were usually conducted in outpatient specialty clinics of tertiary care hospitals in 17 countries. Steroid injection was given with a local anaesthetic agent in 34 trials. Follow-up was from one month to over two years. With one exception, trials were assessed at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding, including lack of confirmation of allocation concealment. With two exceptions, we rated the available evidence as very low quality, implying in each case that we are 'very uncertain about the estimate'.The 39 trials covered 18 comparisons, with six of the seven trials with three or four groups providing evidence towards two comparisons.Eight trials (724 participants) compared steroid injection versus placebo or no treatment. Steroid injection may lead to lower heel pain visual analogue scores (VAS) (0 to 100; higher scores = worse pain) in the short-term (< 1 month) (MD -6.38, 95% CI -11.13 to -1.64; 350 participants; 5 studies; I² = 65%; low quality evidence). Based on a minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) of 8 for average heel pain, the 95% CI includes a marginal clinical benefit. This potential benefit was diminished when data were restricted to three placebo-controlled trials. Steroid injection made no difference to average heel pain in the medium-term (1 to 6 months follow-up) (MD -3.47, 95% CI -8.43 to 1.48; 382 participants; 6 studies; I² = 40%; low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence for no effect on function in the medium-term and for an absence of serious adverse events (219 participants, 4 studies). No studies reported on other adverse events, such as post-injection pain, and on return to previous activity. There was very low quality evidence for fewer treatment failures (defined variously as persistent heel pain at 8 weeks, steroid injection at 12 weeks, and unrelieved pain at 6 months) after steroid injection.The available evidence for other comparisons was rated as very low quality. We are therefore very uncertain of the estimates for the relative effects on people with heel pain of steroids compared with other interventions in:1. Tibial nerve block with anaesthetic (2 trials); orthoses (4 trials); oral NSAIDs (2 trials); and intensive physiotherapy (1 trial).2. Physical modalities: ESWT (5 trials); laser (2 trials); and radiation therapy (1 trial).3. Other invasive procedures: locally injectable NSAID (1 trial); platelet-rich plasma injections (5 trials); autologous blood injections (2 trials); botulinum toxin injections (2 trials); cryopreserved human amniotic membrane injection (1 trial); localised peppering with a needle (1 trial); dry needling (1 trial); and mini scalpel needle release (1 trial).We are also uncertain about the estimates from trials testing different techniques of local steroid injection: ultrasonography-guided versus palpation-guided (5 trials); and scintigraphy-guided versus palpation-guided (1 trial).An exploratory analysis involving pooling data from 21 trials reporting on adverse events revealed two ruptures of plantar fascia (reported in 1 trial) and three injection site infections (reported in 2 trials) in 699 participants allocated to steroid injection study arms. Five trials reported a total of 27 participants with less serious short-term adverse events in the 699 participants allocated steroid injection study arms. Reported treatments were analgesia, ice or both. Given the high risk of selective reporting for these outcomes and imprecision, this evidence was rated at very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence that local steroid injections compared with placebo or no treatment may slightly reduce heel pain up to one month but not subsequently. The available evidence for other outcomes of this comparison was very low quality. Where available, the evidence from comparisons of steroid injections with other interventions used to treat heel pain and of different methods of guiding the injection was also very low quality. Although serious adverse events relating to steroid injection were rare, these were under-reported and a higher risk cannot be ruled out.Further research should focus on establishing the effects (benefits and harms) of injected steroids compared with placebo in typical clinical settings, subsequent to a course of unsuccessful conservative therapy. Ideally, this should be preceded by research, including patient involvement, aimed to obtain consensus on the priority questions for treating plantar heel pain.

The effectiveness of intravesical oxybutynin, propantheline, and capsaicin in the management of neuropathic bladder following spinal cord injury.

The objective of this study was to compare the therapeutic response of intravesical oxybutynin, propantheline, and capsaicin in the treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity. Carried out in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at a university teaching hospital in India, patients acted as their own controls. Oxybutynin 5 mg in solution or propantheline 15 mg in solution and capsaicin were instilled intravesically in each patient. Urodynamic studies were done before and after the intravesical instillation of each drug. The nonparametric tests were used for statistical analysis. The efficacy of intravesical capsaicin in the treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity was statistically significant for reflex volume (RV) (p = 0.018), cystometric capacity (CC) (p = 0.0440), leak volume (LV) (p = 0.000), and leak frequency (LF) (p = 0.009). The Kruskal-Wallis test for paired sample comparing pre- and post-LV and LF for intravesical capsaicin was significant at 2nd week (p = 0.002 and 0.054, respectively). There was a significant difference in therapeutic response between intravesical oxybutynin, propantheline, and capsaicin in the treatment of detrusor overactivity for LV and LF at 2nd week (p = 0.017 and 0.003, respectively). When comparing responses of oxybutynin and propantheline, more subjects demonstrated improvement with intravesical propantheline than oxybutynin for RV, detrusor leak point pressure (LPP), clean intermittent catheterization volume (CICV), and LV. This study suggests that intravesical agents may be used as effective adjuvants in the management of incontinence due to neurogenic detrusor overactivity following spinal cord injury.

Measurement of physical performance and objective fatigability in people with mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury.

The aims of this study were to objectively measure the physical performance and physical endurance of patients with traumatic brain injury with minimization of cognitive and psychological fatigue, and to compare the physical performance of brain injured patients with that of healthy controls. This was a nonrandomized partially blinded controlled study. The study setting was the Outpatient Multidisciplinary Brain Injury Clinic in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of a tertiary care university teaching hospital. Participants included an experimental group that comprised independently ambulant men (age 18-55 years) with mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury (n = 24) who complained of greater fatigue than before their injury and an age-matched and sex-matched control group (n = 24). The intervention included the Six-Minute Walk Test. The primary outcome measures were the Six-Minute Walk Distance, the Fatigue Severity Scale, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, and the Fatigue Visual Numeric Scale; the secondary outcome measures were the Physiological Cost Index of Walking and the Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion. The Six-Minute Walk Distance of the experimental group (452.33+/-68.816) when compared with that of the control group (518.08+/-92.114) was reduced by 12.7 and 30.5%, respectively, when compared with the predicted Six-Minute Walking Distance (650.04+/-79.142) for the same age and sex. The mean Fatigue Severity Scale values were 2.51 and 1.62 for the experimental and control groups, respectively. The mean Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Score for the patients was 85.5+/-7.265. In conclusion, the Six-Minute Walk Test is useful in segregating physical fatigue from cognitive and psychological aspects of fatigue when cognitive and psychological dimensions are known. The Six-Minute Walk Test can be used as a tool for exercise intensity prescription in men with mild-to-moderate brain injury, to avoid the deleterious effects of fatigue.