Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
8 References (8 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Non-pharmacologic treatments for symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review.

blocked
Journal Current medical research and opinion
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 23 Primary studies 23 Primary studies (23 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harm of non-pharmacologic interventions for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) symptoms. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1966 to May 24, 2016 for randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, evaluated risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for critical outcomes (pain and quality-of-life). RESULTS: Twenty-three trials were included. For pain, alpha-lipoic acid was more effective than placebo (moderate SOE) and frequency-modulated electromagnetic stimulation was more effective than sham (low SOE) in the short-term but not the long-term. Electrical stimulation (including transcutaneous) was not effective for pain (low SOE). Spinal cord stimulation was more effective than usual care for pain (low SOE), but had serious complications, and studies had no sham arm. Evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy and acupuncture was insufficient; no exercise or physical therapy trials met inclusion criteria. No interventions reported sufficient evidence on quality-of-life. Most studies were short-term with unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Alpha-lipoic acid and spinal cord stimulation were effective for pain; studies were short-term with quality deficits. Spinal cord stimulation had serious adverse events. Further research should address long-term outcomes and other non-pharmacologic treatments.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Comprehensive Examination of Therapies for Pain in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

blocked
Journal Neuroepidemiology
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 24 Primary studies 24 Primary studies (24 references)

Loading references information
Pain in Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debilitating symptom with a prevalence of 68%, yet is untreated 50% of the time. What is unclear, however, is which treatment is optimal for minimizing pain severity in PD. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of a variety of novel, complimentary, and conventional treatments for pain in PD and elucidate which therapy is the most effective. A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. To identify additional articles, manual searches of reference lists of included trials were also searched. Major neurology conference proceedings occurring between January 2014 and February 2018 were also searched to identify unpublished studies that may be potentially eligible. Twenty-five randomized controlled trials that encompassed medical, surgical, and complementary therapies met our inclusion criteria and exhibited moderate quality evidence. Two reviewers conducted assessments for study eligibility, risk of bias, data extraction, and quality of evidence rating. A conservative random-effects model was used to pool effect estimates of pain severity. The greatest reductions in pain were found with safinamide (Standardized mean difference = -4.83, 95% CI [-5.07 to -4.59], p < 0.0001), followed by cannabinoids and opioids, multidisciplinary team care, catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, and electrical and Chinese therapies. Moderate effects in reducing pain were in pardoprunox and surgery, while the weakest effects were in dopaminergic agonists and miscellaneous therapies. Safinamide is an important adjunct to standard parkinsonian medication for alleviating pain in PD.

Systematic review

Unclassified

The Effectiveness and Risks of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain, Depression, Anxiety, PTSD, and Insomnia: A Systematic Review

blocked
Book VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Reports
Year 2018
Links Pubmed

This article includes 27 Primary studies 27 Primary studies (27 references)

Loading references information
Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is a non-invasive method of applying low-intensity electrical current to the head. It is related to but distinct from other forms of transcranial electrical stimulation including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. The different versions of transcranial electrical stimulation vary in the placement of electrodes, the intensity of the current, and the waveform of the current. According to Guleyupoglu and colleagues, CES evolved from the concept of “electrosleep,” first investigated at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of the early research and applications occurred in Russia. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of electrosleep became more popular in the USA. Because of the belief that the treatment did not actually induce sleep, but rather the sleep was a side effect of the relaxing effect of the current stimulation, the name was changed from “electrosleep” to “cranial electrical stimulation.” Other proposed names, which have not persisted, included “transcerebral electrotherapy” and “NeuroElectric Therapy.” The latter is noteworthy because it gave its name to an early CES device, the Neurotone 101, which was the first device approved by the FDA. All subsequent CES devices have been cleared for marketing by FDA based on the concept of claiming equivalency to the Neurotone 101. The status of cranial electrical stimulation devices and FDA regulation remains a matter of some controversy.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Fisioterapia pasiva para el tratamiento del síndrome de fibromialgia. Una revisión sistemática.

blocked
Journal Fisioterapia
Year 2017
Links DOI

This article includes 18 Primary studies 18 Primary studies (18 references)

Loading references information
Resumen Objetivos Revisar la literatura más actual para comprobar los efectos de la fisioterapia pasiva en el tratamiento de los síntomas de la fibromialgia, diferenciando según técnicas de aplicación y valorando la efectividad según síntoma. Estrategia de búsqueda Se realiza una búsqueda bibliográfica en Medline a través de Pubmed para localizar ensayos clínicos de los últimos 5 años. Selección de estudios Se hallan 683 estudios de los que 18 son seleccionados y evaluados según la calidad metodológica con la escala PEDro. Síntesis de resultados La fisioterapia pasiva puede ser un tratamiento efectivo, ya que técnicas como la electroterapia, la liberación miofascial y la balneoterapia producen analgesia y mejoran la calidad de vida de los sujetos. La depresión mejora con la terapia manual y la balneoterapia; el sueño mejora con la TENS y la terapia manual. Conclusiones La fisioterapia pasiva puede ser un tratamiento efectivo a nivel sintomático, siendo algunas técnicas más indicadas que otras según los síntomas de mayor severidad en los pacientes. Objectives To review the most recent literature on the effects of passive physiotherapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia, including the different techniques used and the measurement of their effectiveness on each symptom. Search strategy a bibliographic search was carried out in PubMed database to locate clinical trials conducted in the previous five years. Study selection Of the 683 studies found, 18 of them were selected and assessed according to their methodological quality using the PEDro scale. Summary of results passive physiotherapy could be an effective treatment, since techniques such as electrotherapy, balneotherapy, and myofascial release improve pain and quality of life in the subjects. Depression is improved by manual therapy and balneotherapy. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and manual therapy improve sleep. Conclusions Passive physiotherapy could be an effective symptomatic treatment. The choice of the technique must depend on the specific symptom required to be treat.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Targeted therapies using electrical and magnetic neural stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain in spinal cord injury.

Journal NeuroImage
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain is one of the most common and disabling symptoms in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Over two-thirds of subjects with SCI suffer from chronic pain influencing quality of life, rehabilitation, and recovery. Given the refractoriness of chronic pain to most pharmacological treatments, the majority of individuals with SCI report worsening of this condition over time. Moreover, only 4-6% of patients in this cohort report improvement. Novel treatments targeting mechanisms associated with pain-maladaptive plasticity, such as electromagnetic neural stimulation, may be desirable to improve outcomes. To date, few, small clinical trials have assessed the effects of invasive and noninvasive nervous system stimulation on pain after SCI. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review initial efficacy, safety and potential predictors of response by assessing the effects of neural stimulation techniques to treat SCI pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed using the PubMed database including studies using the following targeted stimulation strategies: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), High Definition tDCS (HD-tDCS), repetitive Transcranial Magnetical Stimulation (rTMS), Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) and Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS), published prior to June of 2012. We included studies from 1998 to 2012. RESULTS: Eight clinical trials and one naturalistic observational study (nine studies in total) met the inclusion criteria. Among the clinical trials, three studies assessed the effects of tDCS, two of CES, two of rTMS and one of TENS. The naturalistic study investigated the analgesic effects of SCS. No clinical trials for epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) or HD-tDCS were found. Parameters of stimulation and also clinical characteristics varied significantly across studies. Three out of eight studies showed larger effects sizes (0.73, 0.88 and 1.86 respectively) for pain reduction. Classical neuropathic pain symptoms such as dysesthesia (defined as an unpleasant burning sensation in response to touch), allodynia (pain due to a non-painful stimulus), pain in paroxysms, location of SCI in thoracic and lumbar segments and pain in the lower limbs seem to be associated with a positive response to neural stimulation. No significant adverse effects were reported in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain in SCI is disabling and resistant to common pharmacologic approaches. Electrical and magnetic neural stimulation techniques have been developed to offer a potential tool in the management of these patients. Although some of these techniques are associated with large standardized mean differences to reduce pain, we found an important variability in these results across studies. There is a clear need for the development of methods to decrease treatment variability and increase response to neural stimulation for pain treatment. We discuss potential methods such as neuroimaging or EEG-guided neural stimulation and the development of better surrogate markers of response such as TMS-indexed cortical plasticity.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Non-invasive brain stimulation therapy in multiple sclerosis: A review of tDCS, rTMS and ECT results.

blocked
Journal Brain Stimulation
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 25 Primary studies 25 Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling neurological disorder presenting a variety of symptoms which are hard to control by actual drug regimens. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been investigated in the past years for the improvement of several neurologic and psychiatric disorders. OBJECTIVE: Here, we review the application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS, iTBS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in MS patients. METHODS: Articles were searched in common literature databases. Crosslinks were reviewed. RESULTS: ECT was shown to be efficacious for the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders in 21 case reports. The results of tDCS and TMS for the treatment of depressive symptoms, fatigue, tactile sensory deficit, pain, motor performance, and spasticity were assessed in several studies and showed mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, data for the treatment of MS with NIBS is sparse regarding TMS and tDCS. Treatment of severe psychiatric disorders with ECT is only reported in single cases. More studies are needed to elucidate the potential role of NIBS in MS treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Systematic review

Unclassified

Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 18 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 18 Primary studies 18 Primary studies (18 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies. OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise and synthesise available research evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain in people living with SCI. SEARCH METHODS: The search was run on the 1st March 2011. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), four other databases and clinical trials registers. In addition, we manually searched the proceedings of three major scientific conferences on SCI. We updated this search in November 2014 but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention not involving intake of medication or other active substances to treat chronic pain in people with SCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcome was any measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, anxiety, depression and quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to calculate standardised mean differences for each type of intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 trials involving a total of 616 participants. Eight different types of interventions were studied. Eight trials investigated the effects of electrical brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES); five trials) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; three trials). Interventions in the remaining studies included exercise programmes (three trials); acupuncture (two trials); self-hypnosis (one trial); transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (one trial); and a cognitive behavioural programme (one trial). None of the included trials were considered to have low overall risk of bias. Twelve studies had high overall risk of bias, and in four studies risk of bias was unclear. The overall quality of the included studies was weak. Their validity was impaired by methodological weaknesses such as inappropriate choice of control groups. An additional search in November 2014 identified more recent studies that will be included in an update of this review. For tDCS the pooled mean difference between intervention and control groups in pain scores on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10) was a reduction of -1.90 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.33; P value 0.02) in the short term and of -1.87 (95% CI -3.30 to -0.45; P value 0.01) in the mid term. Exercise programmes led to mean reductions in chronic shoulder pain of -1.9 score points for the Short Form (SF)-36 item for pain experience (95% CI -3.4 to -0.4; P value 0.01) and -2.8 pain VAS units (95% CI -3.77 to -1.83; P value < 0.00001); this represented the largest observed treatment effects in the included studies. Trials using rTMS, CES, acupuncture, self-hypnosis, TENS or a cognitive behavioural programme provided no evidence that these interventions reduce chronic pain. Ten trials examined study endpoints other than pain, including anxiety, depression and quality of life, but available data were too scarce for firm conclusions to be drawn. In four trials no side effects were reported with study interventions. Five trials reported transient mild side effects. Overall, a paucity of evidence was found on any serious or long-lasting side effects of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to suggest that non-pharmacological treatments are effective in reducing chronic pain in people living with SCI. The benefits and harms of commonly used non-pharmacological pain treatments should be investigated in randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size and study methodology.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Neuropathic Pain Post Spinal Cord Injury Part 1: Systematic Review of Physical and Behavioral Treatment

blocked
Journal Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 15 Primary studies 15 Primary studies (15 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain has various physiologic and psychosocial aspects. Hence, there is a growing use of adjunct nonpharmacological therapy with traditional pharmacotherapy to reduce neuropathic pain post spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of published research on nonpharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain after SCI. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles addressing nonpharmacological treatment of pain post SCI. Articles were restricted to the English language. Article selection was conducted by 2 independent reviewers with the following inclusion criteria: the subjects participated in a treatment or intervention for neuropathic pain; at least 50% of the subjects had an SCI; at least 3 subjects had an SCI; and a definable intervention was being studied. Data extracted included study design, study type, subject demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, outcome measures, and study results. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) assessment scale. Levels of evidence were assigned to each intervention using a modified Sackett scale. RESULTS: The 16 articles selected for this review fell into 1 of 2 categories of nonpharmacological management of pain after SCI; physical and behavioral treatments. The pooled sample size of all studies included 433 participants. Of the 16 studies included, 7 were level 1, 3 were level 2, and 6 were level 4 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Physical interventions demonstrated the strongest evidence based on quality of studies and numbers of RCTs in the nonpharmacological treatment of post-SCI pain. Of these interventions, transcranial electrical stimulation had the strongest evidence of reducing pain. Despite a growing body of literature, there is still a significant lack of research on the use of nonpharmacological therapies for SCI pain.