BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.
METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible.
CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to describe studies examining rehabilitation for people with osteoarthritis (OA) and to summarize findings from selected key systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
DESIGN: A systematic search was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from April 1
RESULTS: From 1211 articles, 80 articles met the eligibility criteria including 21 SRs and 61 RCTs. The median of the methodological quality of the SRs and RCTs was 7 (2-9) and 6 (3-10), respectively. The studies were grouped into several themes, covering the most important rehabilitation fields.
CONCLUSIONS: Striking is the small number of studies investigating another joint (18%) than the knee (82%). Exercise is the most common treatment evaluated and should be accompanied with education to effectuate a behavioural change in physical activity of people with OA. No new insights in the field of braces (or orthoses) and in the field of acupuncture were found.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a literature review on the effectiveness of footwear on foot pain, function, impairment and disability for people with foot and ankle arthritis.
METHODS: A search of the electronic databases Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, SportDiscus and the Cochrane Library was undertaken in September 2017. The key inclusion criteria were studies reporting on findings of footwear interventions for people with arthritis with foot pain, function, impairment and/or disability. The Quality Index Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of studies included in the qualitative synthesis. The methodological variation of the included studies was assessed to determine the suitability of meta-analysis and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. Between and within group effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d.
RESULTS: 1440 studies were identified for screening with 11 studies included in the review. Mean (range) quality scores were 67% (39-96%). The majority of studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (n = 7), but also included gout (n = 2), and 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis (n = 2). Meta-analysis and GRADE assessment were not deemed appropriated based on methodological variation. Footwear interventions included off-the-shelf footwear, therapeutic footwear and therapeutic footwear with foot orthoses. Key footwear characteristics included cushioning and a wide toe box for rheumatoid arthritis; cushioning, midsole stability and a rocker-sole for gout; and a rocker-sole for 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis. Between group effect sizes for outcomes ranged from 0.01 to 1.26. Footwear interventions were associated with reductions in foot pain, impairment and disability for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Between group differences were more likely to be observed in studies with shorter follow-up periods in people with rheumatoid arthritis (12 weeks). Footwear interventions improved foot pain, function and disability in people with gout and foot pain and function in 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis. Footwear interventions were associated with changes to plantar pressure in people with rheumatoid arthritis, gout and 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis and walking velocity in people with rheumatoid arthritis and gout.
CONCLUSION: Footwear interventions are associated with reductions in foot pain, impairment and disability in people with rheumatoid arthritis, improvements to foot pain, function and disability in people with gout and improvements to foot pain and function in people with 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis. Footwear interventions have been shown to reduce plantar pressure rheumatoid arthritis, gout and 1st metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis and improve walking velocity in rheumatoid arthritis and gout.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapies versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods We electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to 14 June 2015, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about TCM therapies for KOA. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 softwares. Results A total of 56 RCTs involving 7 256 patients were included, in which 19 different treatment strategies were investigated. All were short-term efficacy studies. Our work yielded 33 direct and 138 indirect comparisons, among which 76 were demonstrated statistically significant. The result of meta-analysis showed that, the TCM-based therapy group had lower complication rates, compared with the NSAIDs group. TCM internal application + acupuncture + fumigation, internal application + fumigation + moxibustion, acupuncture + massage, TCM extra-apply + massage, massage + fumigation + moxibustion, and massage + fumigation were the top six in terms of treatment effect. NSAIDs ranked 18th. Conclusion The safety and effectiveness of TCM therapies are generally better than NSAIDs except moxibustion, particularly more remarkable for the top six TCM therapies. TCM comprehensive therapies are superior over monomodality therapies. Due to the limitation of the present studies, the long-term efficacy of TCM therapies needs further investigation, and our findings also need to be verified by large-scale and well-designed RCTs.
Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.
METHODS:
Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis.
RESULTS:
A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible.
CONCLUSIONS:
At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
