OBJECTIVE: Spinal manual therapy (SMT) is often used to treat patients with spinal disorders; however, the underlying mechanisms of SMT are not fully understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effect of SMT compared with sham treatment or no intervention on local or remote (segmental or non-segmental) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and people who are pain free.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of SMT on PPTs in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and in people who were pain free were included. Quality assessment and evidence synthesis were performed according to Cochrane Handbook recommendations. A meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference and 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Twenty-two reports were included in the present review. There were no significant results for an immediate effect of SMT on local (low certainty of evidence), remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence), and remote (non-segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in patients with chronic pain as well as on local (moderate certainty of evidence) and remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in people who were pain free. A small but significant effect (standardized mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.51; low certainty of evidence) was observed on remote (non-segmental) PPTs in people who were pain free, which was not considered a meaningful effect size.
CONCLUSION: No immediate, consistent, or meaningful hypoalgetic effect of SMT was shown on PPTs on various body areas. Involvement of spinal or supraspinal underlying mechanisms were, therefore, not confirmed via PPTs but should still be investigated using methods designed to assess central nervous pain processing.
IMPACT: No consistent and meaningful hypoalgesic effects of spinal manual therapy were demonstrated on PPTs in participants who were pain free and in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of surgery on all tendinopathies by comparing it to no treatment, sham surgery and exercise-based therapies for both mid-term (12 months) and long-term (> 12 months) outcomes.
METHODS: Our literature search included EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and Scopus. A combined assessment of internal validity, external validity and precision of each eligible study yielded its overall study quality. Results were considered significant if they were based on strong (Level 1) or moderate (Level 2) evidence.
RESULTS: 12 studies were eligible. Participants had the following types of tendinopathy: shoulder in seven studies, lateral elbow in three, patellar in one and Achilles in one. Two studies were of good, four of moderate and six of poor overall quality. Surgery was superior to no treatment or placebo, for the outcomes of pain, function, range of movement (ROM) and treatment success in the short and midterm. Surgery had similar effects to sham surgery on pain, function and range of motion in the midterm. Physiotherapy was as effective as surgery both in the midterm and long term for pain, function, ROM and tendon force, and pain, treatment success and quality of life, respectively.
CONCLUSION: We recommend that healthcare professionals who treat tendinopathy encourage patients to comply with loading exercise treatment for at least 12 months before the option of surgery is seriously entertained.
BACKGROUND: Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.Trial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.Both placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.Compared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).At one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, -0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).Adverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.Based upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.Adverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.
BACKGROUND: Management of rotator cuff disease often includes manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention with placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercises. Trials investigating the primary or add-on effect of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (3620 participants), although only 10 addressed the main comparisons of interest. Overall risk of bias was low in three, unclear in 14 and high in 43 trials. We were unable to perform any meta-analyses because of clinical heterogeneity or incomplete outcome reporting. One trial compared manual therapy and exercise with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) in 120 participants with chronic rotator cuff disease (high quality evidence). At 22 weeks, the mean change in overall pain with placebo was 17.3 points on a 100-point scale, and 24.8 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted mean difference (MD) 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 14.30 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% fewer to 14% more). Mean change in function with placebo was 15.6 points on a 100-point scale, and 22.4 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted MD 7.1 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 13.90 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% to 14% more). Fifty-seven per cent (31/54) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 41% (24/58) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.03; absolute risk difference 16% (2% fewer to 34% more). Thirty-one per cent (17/55) of participants reported adverse events with manual therapy and exercise compared with 8% (5/61) of participants receiving placebo (RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.49 to 9.54; absolute risk difference 23% (9% to 37% more). However adverse events were mild (short-term pain following treatment).Five trials (low quality evidence) found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality of life from four weeks up to 12 months. However, global treatment success was more common up to 11 weeks in people receiving glucocorticoid injection (low quality evidence). One trial (low quality evidence) showed no important differences between manual therapy and exercise and arthroscopic subacromial decompression with respect to overall pain, function, active range of motion and strength at six and 12 months, or global treatment success at four to eight years. One trial (low quality evidence) found that manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as acupuncture plus dietary counselling and Phlogenzym supplement with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality life at 12 weeks. We are uncertain whether manual therapy and exercise improves function more than oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), or whether combining manual therapy and exercise with glucocorticoid injection provides additional benefit in function over glucocorticoid injection alone, because of the very low quality evidence in these two trials.Fifty-two trials investigated effects of manual therapy alone or exercise alone, and the evidence was mostly very low quality. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between manual therapy alone and placebo, no treatment, therapeutic ultrasound and kinesiotaping, although manual therapy alone was less effective than glucocorticoid injection. Exercise alone led to less improvement in overall pain, but not function, when compared with surgical repair for rotator cuff tear. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between exercise alone and placebo, radial extracorporeal shockwave treatment, glucocorticoid injection, arthroscopic subacromial decompression and functional brace. Further, manual therapy or exercise provided few or no additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions, and one type of manual therapy or exercise was rarely more effective than another.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying 60 eligible trials, only one trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise reflective of common current practice to placebo. We judged it to be of high quality and found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. Effects of manual therapy and exercise may be similar to those of glucocorticoid injection and arthroscopic subacromial decompression, but this is based on low quality evidence. Adverse events associated with manual therapy and exercise are relatively more frequent than placebo but mild in nature. Novel combinations of manual therapy and exercise should be compared with a realistic placebo in future trials. Further trials of manual therapy alone or exercise alone for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review.
BACKGROUND: Management of rotator cuff disease may include use of electrotherapy modalities (also known as electrophysical agents), which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, or thermal) into the body. Examples include therapeutic ultrasound, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). These modalities are usually delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease (e.g. subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, calcific tendinitis), and comparing any electrotherapy modality with placebo, no intervention, a different electrotherapy modality or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Trials investigating whether electrotherapy modalities were more effective than placebo or no treatment, or were an effective addition to another physical therapy intervention (e.g. manual therapy or exercise) were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 trials (2388 participants). Most trials (n = 43) included participants with rotator cuff disease without calcification (four trials included people with calcific tendinitis). Sixteen (34%) trials investigated the effect of an electrotherapy modality delivered in isolation. Only 23% were rated at low risk of allocation bias, and 49% were rated at low risk of both performance and detection bias (for self-reported outcomes). The trials were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention and comparator, so none of the data could be combined in a meta-analysis.In one trial (61 participants; low quality evidence), pulsed therapeutic ultrasound (three to five times a week for six weeks) was compared with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) for calcific tendinitis. At six weeks, the mean reduction in overall pain with placebo was -6.3 points on a 52-point scale, and -14.9 points with ultrasound (MD -8.60 points, 95% CI -13.48 to -3.72 points; absolute risk difference 17%, 7% to 26% more). Mean improvement in function with placebo was 3.7 points on a 100-point scale, and 17.8 points with ultrasound (mean difference (MD) 14.10 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.39 to 22.81 points; absolute risk difference 14%, 5% to 23% more). Ninety-one per cent (29/32) of participants reported treatment success with ultrasound compared with 52% (15/29) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.53; absolute risk difference 39%, 18% to 60% more). Mean improvement in quality of life with placebo was 0.40 points on a 10-point scale, and 2.60 points with ultrasound (MD 2.20 points, 95% CI 0.91 points to 3.49 points; absolute risk difference 22%, 9% to 35% more). Between-group differences were not important at nine months. No participant reported adverse events.Therapeutic ultrasound produced no clinically important additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions (eight clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences in patient-important outcomes between ultrasound and other active interventions (manual therapy, acupuncture, glucocorticoid injection, glucocorticoid injection plus oral tolmetin sodium, or exercise) because the quality of evidence is very low. Two placebo-controlled trials reported results favouring LLLT up to three weeks (low quality evidence), however combining LLLT with other physical therapy interventions produced few additional benefits (10 clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is more or less effective than glucocorticoid injection with respect to pain, function, global treatment success and active range of motion because of the very low quality evidence from a single trial. In other single, small trials, no clinically important benefits of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), microcurrent electrical stimulation (MENS), acetic acid iontophoresis and microwave diathermy were observed (low or very low quality evidence).No adverse events of therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT, TENS or microwave diathermy were reported by any participants. Adverse events were not measured in any trials investigating the effects of PEMF, MENS or acetic acid iontophoresis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, therapeutic ultrasound may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with calcific tendinitis, and LLLT may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with rotator cuff disease. Further high quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. In contrast, based on low quality evidence, PEMF may not provide clinically relevant benefits over placebo, and therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT and PEMF may not provide additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions. We are uncertain whether TENS is superior to placebo, and whether any electrotherapy modality provides benefits over other active interventions (e.g. glucocorticoid injection) because of the very low quality of the evidence. Practitioners should communicate the uncertainty of these effects and consider other approaches or combinations of treatment. Further trials of electrotherapy modalities for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review.
Question: Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Participants: People with musculoskeletal disorders. INTERVENTIONS: Massage therapy (manual manipulation of the soft tissues) as a stand-alone intervention. Outcome: The primary outcomes were pain and function. RESULTS: The 26 eligible randomised trials involved 2565 participants. The mean sample size was 95 participants (range 16 to 579) per study; 10 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias. Overall, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage reduces pain in the short term compared to no treatment in people with shoulder pain and osteoarthritis of the knee, but not in those with low back pain or neck pain. Furthermore, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage improves function in the short term compared to no treatment in people with low back pain, knee arthritis or shoulder pain. Low-to-very-low-level evidence from single studies indicated no clear benefits of massage over acupuncture, joint mobilisation, manipulation or relaxation therapy in people with fibromyalgia, low back pain and general musculoskeletal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Massage therapy, as a stand-alone treatment, reduces pain and improves function compared to no treatment in some musculoskeletal conditions. When massage is compared to another active treatment, no clear benefit was evident. [Bervoets DC, Luijsterburg PAJ, Alessie JJN, Buijs MJ, Verhagen AP (2015) Massage therapy has short-term benefits for people with common musculoskeletal disorders compared to no treatment: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 61: 106–116]
BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal condition in the general population. Passive physical modalities are commonly used to treat shoulder pain. However, previous systematic reviews report conflicting results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of soft tissue injuries of the shoulder.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1(st), 1990 to April 18(th), 2013.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened 1470 of 1760 retrieved articles after removing 290 duplicates. Twenty-two articles were eligible for critical appraisal. We critically appraised the eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Of those, 11 studies had a low risk of bias.
DATA EXTRACTION: The lead author extracted data from low risk of bias studies and built evidence tables. A second reviewer independently checked the extracted data.
DATA SYNTHESIS: We synthesized the findings of low risk of bias studies according to principles of best evidence synthesis. We found that pre-tensioned tape, ultrasound and interferential current are not effective to manage shoulder pain. However, diathermy and corticosteroid injections lead to similar outcomes. Low-level laser therapy provides short-term pain reduction for subacromial impingement syndrome. Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy is not effective for subacromial impingement syndrome but it provides benefits for persistent shoulder calcific tendonitis.
LIMITATIONS: Non-English studies excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: Most passive physical modalities do not benefit patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. However, low-level laser therapy is more effective than placebo or ultrasound for subacromial impingement syndrome. Similarly, shock-wave therapy is more effective than sham for persistent shoulder calcific tendinitis.
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of manual therapy (MT) for patients with rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy. Background RC tendinopathy is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder. MT is a common intervention used by physiotherapists for this condition although evidence regarding its efficacy is inconclusive. Methods A literature search using terms related to shoulder, RC tendinopathy, and MT was conducted in 4 databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared MT to any other type of intervention to treat RC tendinopathy. RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses or qualitative synthesis of evidence were performed. Results Twenty-one studies were included. The majority had a high risk of bias with only 5 studies having a score of 69% or greater, indicative of moderate to low risk of bias. A small but statistically significant overall effect for pain reduction of MT compared with a placebo or in addition to another intervention was observed (n=406) which may or may not be clinically important given a mean difference of 1.1(95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6, 1.6) on a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS). Adding manual therapy to an exercise program (n=226) significantly decreased pain and this effect may or may not be clinically important (mean difference of 1.0; 95%CI: 0.7, 1.4 on a 10 cm VAS). Based on qualitative analyses it is unclear that MT used alone or added to exercises improves function. Conclusions For patients with RC tendinopathy, based on low to moderate quality evidence, MT may decrease pain but it is unclear if it could improve function. More methodologically sound studies are needed before more definitive conclusions can be made. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 26 Mar 2015. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.5455.
The objective of this study is to review randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of surgery for the treatment of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy. Studies up to August 2013 were located in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PEDro databases using relevant keywords. Studies were included if: (1) participants had rotator cuff tendinopathy, (2) the trials were conducted on an adult population (≥18 years old), (3) at least one of the interventions studied was a surgical procedure, (4) study design was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and (5) the article was written in English or French. Characteristics of the included studies were extracted using a standardized form. Two independent raters reviewed the methodological quality of the studies using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration Group. Differences were resolved by consensus. Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria. After consensus, the mean methodological quality for all studies was 58.9 ± 10.8 %. In three out of four RCTs of moderate or low methodological quality, no significant difference in treatment effectiveness was observed between open or arthroscopic acromioplasty compared to exercises in the treatment of RC tendinopathy. Based on two studies of low or moderate methodological quality, no difference in treatment effectiveness was observed between arthroscopic and open acromioplasty. Two other RCTs of low to moderate quality, however, found that arthroscopic acromioplasty yielded better results in the short-term for shoulder range of motion in flexion but that both procedures were comparable in the long-term. One additional study favored open acromioplasty over arthroscopic acromioplasty for the treatment of RC tendinopathy. Based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, acromioplasty, be it open or arthroscopic, is no more effective than exercises for the treatment of RC tendinopathy. Low-grade evidence also suggests that arthroscopic acromioplasty may yield better results in the short-term for shoulder range of motion in flexion compared to open acromioplasty, but long-term results are comparable between the two types of surgery. More high-quality RCTs are required in order to provide comprehensive treatment guidelines to healthcare providers.
BACKGROUND: Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.
Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.
We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)
We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.
Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.
In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.
Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.
Spinal manual therapy (SMT) is often used to treat patients with spinal disorders; however, the underlying mechanisms of SMT are not fully understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effect of SMT compared with sham treatment or no intervention on local or remote (segmental or non-segmental) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and people who are pain free.
METHODS:
A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of SMT on PPTs in patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and in people who were pain free were included. Quality assessment and evidence synthesis were performed according to Cochrane Handbook recommendations. A meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference and 95% CIs.
RESULTS:
Twenty-two reports were included in the present review. There were no significant results for an immediate effect of SMT on local (low certainty of evidence), remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence), and remote (non-segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in patients with chronic pain as well as on local (moderate certainty of evidence) and remote (segmental) (low certainty of evidence) PPTs in people who were pain free. A small but significant effect (standardized mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.51; low certainty of evidence) was observed on remote (non-segmental) PPTs in people who were pain free, which was not considered a meaningful effect size.
CONCLUSION:
No immediate, consistent, or meaningful hypoalgetic effect of SMT was shown on PPTs on various body areas. Involvement of spinal or supraspinal underlying mechanisms were, therefore, not confirmed via PPTs but should still be investigated using methods designed to assess central nervous pain processing.
IMPACT:
No consistent and meaningful hypoalgesic effects of spinal manual therapy were demonstrated on PPTs in participants who were pain free and in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
