BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of percutaneous electrical stimulation (PENS) alone or as an adjunct with other interventions on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials where at least one group received any form of PENS for musculoskeletal condition. Studies had to include humans and collect outcomes on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included and included heterogeneous musculoskeletal conditions with short- or midterm follow-ups. PENS alone had a large effect (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.79) on pain and a small effect (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.06) on related disability at short-term as compared with sham. A moderate effect of PENS alone (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.19) on pain when compared with other interventions was observed. The inclusion of PENS with other interventions had a moderate effect for decreasing pain at short- (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.37) and midterm (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.27). No effect at midterm (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10) on related disability was seen. The risk of bias was generally low; but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the level of evidence.
CONCLUSION: There is low level of evidence suggesting the effects of PENS alone or in combination for pain, but not related disability, in musculoskeletal pain.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a. Registration number: CRD42019131331.
SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of PENS for the management of pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions found that PENS could decrease level of pain intensity but not relateddisability in musculoskeletal pain disorders.
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 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.
To evaluate the effects of percutaneous electrical stimulation (PENS) alone or as an adjunct with other interventions on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT:
Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials where at least one group received any form of PENS for musculoskeletal condition. Studies had to include humans and collect outcomes on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.
RESULTS:
Sixteen studies were included and included heterogeneous musculoskeletal conditions with short- or midterm follow-ups. PENS alone had a large effect (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.79) on pain and a small effect (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.06) on related disability at short-term as compared with sham. A moderate effect of PENS alone (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.19) on pain when compared with other interventions was observed. The inclusion of PENS with other interventions had a moderate effect for decreasing pain at short- (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.37) and midterm (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.27). No effect at midterm (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10) on related disability was seen. The risk of bias was generally low; but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the level of evidence.
CONCLUSION:
There is low level of evidence suggesting the effects of PENS alone or in combination for pain, but not related disability, in musculoskeletal pain.
This meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of PENS for the management of pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions found that PENS could decrease level of pain intensity but not relateddisability in musculoskeletal pain disorders.
