BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses have been conducted to compare outcomes of various treatment injections for lateral epicondylitis (LE), including corticosteroid injection (CSI) and autologous blood products such as autologous blood (AB) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing different injection treatments (CSI, AB, PRP) for LE to determine which meta-analyses provide the best available evidence.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to locate meta-analyses that compared clinical outcomes of CSI, AB, and PRP for the treatment of LE. Search terms included "injection," "corticosteroid," "platelet-rich plasma," "autologous blood," "tennis elbow," "lateral epicondylitis," and "meta-analysis." Results were reviewed to determine study eligibility. Patient outcomes were extracted from these meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed with the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems. The Jadad decision algorithm was then used to determine which meta-analyses provided the best level of evidence.
RESULTS: Nine meta-analyses (two level 1 studies, seven level 2 studies) containing 8656 patients met the eligibility criteria. Seven meta-analyses found that autologous blood products such as AB and PRP significantly improved pain and elbow function in the intermediate term (12-26 weeks), while 4 studies found that CSI effectively relieved pain and improved elbow function in the short term (<12 weeks). The study by Arirachakaran et al in 2016 received the highest QUOROM and Oxman-Guyatt scores; therefore, this meta-analysis appears to have the highest level of evidence. In addition, this study was rated the highest-quality study in this systematic review according to the Jadad decision algorithm. Lower-quality meta-analyses indicated that dosage, number of injections, and differences in therapeutic duration between CSI and autologous blood products may be essential factors in determining the appropriate treatment injection protocol for LE.
CONCLUSION: The current best available evidence suggests that CSI improves functional outcomes and pain relief in the short term, while AB and PRP are the most effective treatments in the intermediate term.
BACKGROUND: Improving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To carry out a Cochrane overview by synthesising systematic reviews of interventions provided to improve upper limb function after stroke.
METHODS: Search methods: We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; the Database of Reviews of Effects; and PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews) (June 2013). We also contacted review authors in an effort to identify further relevant reviews.Selection criteria: We included Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with stroke comparing upper limb interventions with no treatment, usual care or alternative treatments. Our primary outcome of interest was upper limb function; secondary outcomes included motor impairment and performance of activities of daily living. When we identified overlapping reviews, we systematically identified the most up-to-date and comprehensive review and excluded reviews that overlapped with this.Data collection and analysis: Two overview authors independently applied the selection criteria, excluding reviews that were superseded by more up-to-date reviews including the same (or similar) studies. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of reviews (using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool) and extracted data. Quality of evidence within each comparison in each review was determined using objective criteria (based on numbers of participants, risk of bias, heterogeneity and review quality) to apply GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) levels of evidence. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We systematically tabulated the effects of interventions and used quality of evidence to determine implications for clinical practice and to make recommendations for future research.
MAIN RESULTS: Our searches identified 1840 records, from which we included 40 completed reviews (19 Cochrane; 21 non-Cochrane), covering 18 individual interventions and dose and setting of interventions. The 40 reviews contain 503 studies (18,078 participants). We extracted pooled data from 31 reviews related to 127 comparisons. We judged the quality of evidence to be high for 1/127 comparisons (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrating no benefit for outcomes of activities of daily living (ADLs)); moderate for 49/127 comparisons (covering seven individual interventions) and low or very low for 77/127 comparisons.Moderate-quality evidence showed a beneficial effect of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), mental practice, mirror therapy, interventions for sensory impairment, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice, suggesting that these may be effective interventions; moderate-quality evidence also indicated that unilateral arm training may be more effective than bilateral arm training. Information was insufficient to reveal the relative effectiveness of different interventions.Moderate-quality evidence from subgroup analyses comparing greater and lesser doses of mental practice, repetitive task training and virtual reality demonstrates a beneficial effect for the group given the greater dose, although not for the group given the smaller dose; however tests for subgroup differences do not suggest a statistically significant difference between these groups. Future research related to dose is essential.Specific recommendations for future research are derived from current evidence. These recommendations include but are not limited to adequately powered, high-quality RCTs to confirm the benefit of CIMT, mental practice, mirror therapy, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice; high-quality RCTs to explore the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), tDCS, hands-on therapy, music therapy, pharmacological interventions and interventions for sensory impairment; and up-to-date reviews related to biofeedback, Bobath therapy, electrical stimulation, reach-to-grasp exercise, repetitive task training, strength training and stretching and positioning.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of overlapping reviews related to interventions to improve upper limb function following stroke have been identified, and this overview serves to signpost clinicians and policy makers toward relevant systematic reviews to support clinical decisions, providing one accessible, comprehensive document, which should support clinicians and policy makers in clinical decision making for stroke rehabilitation.Currently, no high-quality evidence can be found for any interventions that are currently used as part of routine practice, and evidence is insufficient to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness of interventions. Effective collaboration is urgently needed to support large, robust RCTs of interventions currently used routinely within clinical practice. Evidence related to dose of interventions is particularly needed, as this information has widespread clinical and research implications.
BACKGROUND: This article is the first in a series presenting the strongest published evidence for physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) to date coming from the Cochrane Collaboration. The intent of the series is to stimulate ideas for reviews and research in neglected areas of PRM.
AIM: To systematically review the rehabilitation contents of the Cochrane Collaboration on disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults.
METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched at the end of June 2013 for articles relevant for PRM about disabilities resulting from spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Retrieved papers were classified according to the PRM approach: active therapies, which require active participation by patients to achieve treatment goals, and passive treatments, which rely on the application of external forces. The quality of the reviews was checked against the AMSTAR checklist.
RESULTS: Reviews on spinal disorders or pain syndromes were found in the Cochrane Back Group (CBG) and in the Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (CPPSCG). Thirty-eight (42.8%) of 89 Cochrane reviews in the CBG and 7 (2.4%) of 293 Cochrane reviews in the CPPSCG were included. All were of high quality (range, 8-11 points out of 11 on the AMSTAR checklist). The contents of the reviews are given in detail.
CONCLUSION: This review presents an overview of the current evidence for PRM in the treatment of disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Within PRM there is ample space for research in the Cochrane Collaboration and for producing original studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: To apply evidence-based clinical practice, clinicians must be familiar with the current best evidence.
Previous meta-analyses have been conducted to compare outcomes of various treatment injections for lateral epicondylitis (LE), including corticosteroid injection (CSI) and autologous blood products such as autologous blood (AB) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
PURPOSE:
To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing different injection treatments (CSI, AB, PRP) for LE to determine which meta-analyses provide the best available evidence.
STUDY DESIGN:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS:
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to locate meta-analyses that compared clinical outcomes of CSI, AB, and PRP for the treatment of LE. Search terms included "injection," "corticosteroid," "platelet-rich plasma," "autologous blood," "tennis elbow," "lateral epicondylitis," and "meta-analysis." Results were reviewed to determine study eligibility. Patient outcomes were extracted from these meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed with the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems. The Jadad decision algorithm was then used to determine which meta-analyses provided the best level of evidence.
RESULTS:
Nine meta-analyses (two level 1 studies, seven level 2 studies) containing 8656 patients met the eligibility criteria. Seven meta-analyses found that autologous blood products such as AB and PRP significantly improved pain and elbow function in the intermediate term (12-26 weeks), while 4 studies found that CSI effectively relieved pain and improved elbow function in the short term (<12 weeks). The study by Arirachakaran et al in 2016 received the highest QUOROM and Oxman-Guyatt scores; therefore, this meta-analysis appears to have the highest level of evidence. In addition, this study was rated the highest-quality study in this systematic review according to the Jadad decision algorithm. Lower-quality meta-analyses indicated that dosage, number of injections, and differences in therapeutic duration between CSI and autologous blood products may be essential factors in determining the appropriate treatment injection protocol for LE.
CONCLUSION:
The current best available evidence suggests that CSI improves functional outcomes and pain relief in the short term, while AB and PRP are the most effective treatments in the intermediate term.
