Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
13 References (13 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

blocked
Journal The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

blocked
Journal PloS one
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references) 135 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (135 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options. CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Effectiveness of Homeopathy for Clinical Conditions: Evaluation of the Evidence

blocked
Authors Optum
Report Prepared for the National Health and Medical Research Council; Canberra
Year 2015
Links nhmrc.gov.au

This article includes 46 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (46 references)

Loading references information

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Does exercise improve symptoms in fibromyalgia?

blocked
Authors Rain C , Seguel W , Vergara L
Journal Medwave
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 14 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (14 references) 25 Primary studies Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
It has been proposed that fibromyalgia could be managed by pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Regular physical exercise is commonly used as a non-pharmacological intervention. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified 14 systematic reviews including 25 randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We conclude that regular physical exercise probably reduces pain in patients with fibromyalgia.

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis.

Journal Osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 17 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (17 references) 11 Primary studies Primary studies (11 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide. METHOD: Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS: Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION: These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Evidence Map of Mindfulness

Book VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Reports
Year 2014
Links Pubmed hsrd.research.va.gov

This article includes 81 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (81 references)

Loading references information
This evidence map provides an overview of “mindfulness” intervention research and describes its volume and focus. It summarizes patient outcomes as reported in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched 10 electronic databases to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted topic experts. We used a bubble plot as a visual overview of the distribution of evidence and synthesized results narratively in an executive summary. In total, 81 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and the largest review included 109 mindfulness RCTs. Most research is available for general overviews on health benefits or psychological wellbeing. Reviews on chronic illness, depression, substance use, somatization, distress, and mental illness included 10 or more RCTs. Reviews suggest differential effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and other mindfulness-based interventions, and definitions of “mindfulness-based” varied. The most consistent effect was reported for depression but published meta-analyses also indicated effects compared to passive control of MBSR on overall health, chronic illness, and psychological variables; MBCT for mental illness; and mindfulness interventions for somatization disorders. Limited evidence is also available for mindfulness interventions for pain, anxiety, and psychosis compared to passive control groups. More detail is provided for priority areas post-traumatic stress disorder, stress, depression, and wellness. The evidence map provides a broad overview (not detailed or definitive effectiveness evidence) over the existing research to help interpret the state of the evidence to inform policy and clinical decision making.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

The adult social care outcomes framework : A systematic review of systematic reviews to support its use and development

blocked
Report EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Year 2014
Links EppiCentre Fulltext link

This article includes 43 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (43 references)

Loading references information
ABSTRACT: Overall the evidence base was large; we identified 43 systematic reviews covering hundreds of studies and thousands of participants. Evidence clustered around particular outcomes, interventions and populations. Outcomes The vast majority of evidence is on quality of life and prevention outcomes Evidence on satisfaction with services and safeguarding is severely limited Interventions Physical activity interventions are those most widely evaluated in systematic reviews, followed by occupational therapy interventions No evidence is available on some key social care interventions, e.g. direct payments Populations The majority of evidence concerns people with long-term conditions (e.g. dementia, cancer, stroke) There is much less evidence on older people or people with mental health problems Evidence on learning or physical disabilities is extremely limited. Interventions with evidence of positive effect Evidence of positive impact was found for seven of the 14 social care interventions examined in the included reviews: physical activity, occupational therapy, supported employment, lay/peer support, hip protectors, assistive devices and personal assistance. Evidence on the scale of positive impacts was available for five of these interventions. Larger positive impacts resulted from integrated employment and mental health support and from hip protectors. Both larger and smaller impacts were found across eight physical activity reviews and two occupational therapy reviews. Smaller impacts resulted from a lay-led self-management intervention. Interventions with evidence of harm Two reviews contained evidence that interventions shown to be effective for some populations could potentially cause harm to vulnerable social care recipients. Tai chi, though effective for older people in general, was found to increase the rate of falls among frail older people. Exercise was found to have positive impacts on people exercising for rehabilitation after a period of ill health, but a negative impact on the psychological QoL of people exercising to manage their condition. Interventions not shown to be effective There were seven interventions for which no conclusive positive evidence was found. All available evidence on the following interventions was inconclusive: structured communication, safeguarding training, home hazard assessment. All available evidence on case management and social support interventions showed no evidence of difference between intervention and control groups. Of two reviews on alternative therapies, one found no evidence of difference between groups and another found inconclusive evidence. Inconclusive evidence was also found for some interventions shown to be positive in other reviews: physical activity, occupational therapy, personal assistance, assistive devices, lay/peer support, supported employment. No evidence of difference was found in some reviews for interventions which were found in other reviews to have positive effects: physical activity, assistive devices, lay/peer support, supported employment. On balance, the overall evidence suggests that physical activity interventions and occupational therapy are effective. What are the implications? Implications for policy and practice The greatest portion of evidence included in this review of reviews is about physical activity – evidence suggests that these types of interventions can be effective for people with long-term conditions and non-frail older people and may address both quality of life and delay or reduce the need for social care support. Moreover, although physical activity interventions may typically be regarded as not within the remit of social care, they may be relatively cheap and easy to implement, and therefore worth considering. More complex and perhaps more recognisably social care interventions such as occupational therapy are also supported by the review-level literature. The large and medium effects resulting from integrated mental health and employment services also underscore the value of complex social care interventions. Moreover, the integrated nature of this particular intervention suggests that the current drive in the UK to integrate health and social services (Department of Health 2011) may prove to be successful. Wider evaluation of integrated services is certainly warranted. A last key message for policymakers and practitioners is the need to recognise the influence of contextual factors on the success of social care interventions, in particular the need for safety measures when implementing social care interventions with particularly vulnerable groups. Implications for research The great breadth and extent of evidence contained within this review of reviews is clear. However, assessing the available review-level evidence across the whole of social care also makes clear that there are significant gaps in the evidence examining impact on ASCOF outcomes. There is severely limited evidence on satisfaction with services and safeguarding outcomes in existing systematic reviews There is little use of quality of life measures designed to evaluate the impact of social care interventions included in reviews There is limited review-level evidence on many social care interventions, and none for some key intervention types There is scant evidence on key populations groups – people with physical and learning disabilities There is no review-level evidence on cost-effectiveness. How did we get these results? The research involved identifying and analysing evidence from systematic reviews to answer the following research questions: Which social care interventions can effectively improve outcomes for services users in the four outcome domains set out in the ASCOF: quality of life, prevention, satisfaction and safeguarding? How much impact do effective social care interventions have on ASCOF outcomes?

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Multidisciplinary team care in rehabilitation: an overview of reviews.

Journal Journal of rehabilitation medicine : official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 14 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (14 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To systematically investigate current scientific evidence about the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team rehabilitation for different health problems. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Medline, DARE, Embase, and Cinahl databases, and research from existing systematic reviews was critically appraised and summarized. STUDY SELECTION: Using the search terms "rehabilitation", "multidisciplinary teams" or "team care", references were identified for existing studies published after 2000 that examined multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care for adults, without restrictions in terms of study population or outcomes. The most recent reviews examining a study population were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted information about study populations, sample sizes, study designs, rehabilitation settings, the team, interventions, and findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 14 reviews were included to summarize the findings of 12 different study populations. Evidence was found to support improved functioning following multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care for 10 of 12 different study population: elderly people, elderly people with hip fracture, homeless people with mental illness, adults with multiple sclerosis, stroke, acquired brain injury, chronic arthropathy, chronic pain, low back pain, and fibromyalgia. Whereas evidence was not found for adults with amyetrophic lateral schlerosis, and neck and shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: Although these studies included heterogeneous patient groups the overall conclusion was that multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care effectively improves rehabilitation intervention. However, further research in this area is needed.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Exercise prescription for hospitalized people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and comorbidities: a synthesis of systematic reviews.

Journal International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 53 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (53 references) 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: The prescription of physical activity for hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) can be complicated by the presence of comorbidities. The current research aimed to synthesize the relevant literature on the benefits of exercise for people with multimorbidities who experience an AECOPD, and ask: What are the parameters and outcomes of exercise in AECOPD and in conditions that are common comorbidities as reported by systematic reviews (SRs)? METHODS: An SR was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration protocol. Nine electronic databases were searched up to July 2011. Articles were included if they (1) described participants with AECOPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or one of eleven common comorbidities, (2) were an SR, (3) examined aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT), balance training (BT), or a combination thereof, (4) included at least one outcome of fitness, and (5) compared exercise training versus control/sham. RESULTS: This synthesis examined 58 SRs of exercise training in people with AECOPD, COPD, or eleven chronic conditions commonly associated with COPD. Meta-analyses of endurance (aerobic or exercise capacity, 6-minute walk distance--6MWD) were shown to significantly improve in most conditions (except osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and depression), whereas strength was shown to improve in five of the 13 conditions searched: COPD, older adults, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and diabetes. Several studies of different conditions also reported improvements in quality of life, function, and control or prevention outcomes. Meta-analyses also demonstrate that exercise training decreases the risk of mortality in older adults, and those with COPD or ischemic heart disease. The most common types of training were AT and RT. BT and functional training were commonly applied in older adults. The quality of the SRs for most conditions was moderate to excellent (>65%) as evaluated by AMSTAR scores. CONCLUSION: In summary, this synthesis showed evidence of significant benefits from exercise training in AECOPD, COPD, and conditions that are common comorbidities. A broader approach to exercise and activity prescription in pulmonary rehabilitation may induce therapeutic benefits to ameliorate clinical sequelae associated with AECOPD and comorbidities such as the inclusion of BT and functional training.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

The effectiveness of acupuncture research across components of the trauma spectrum response (tsr): a systematic review of reviews.

blocked
Journal Systematic reviews
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 51 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (51 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Co-morbid symptoms (for example, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and fatigue) are particularly common in military fighters returning from the current conflicts, who have experienced physical and/or psychological trauma. These overlapping conditions cut across the boundaries of mind, brain and body, resulting in a common symptomatic and functional spectrum of physical, cognitive, psychological and behavioral effects referred to as the 'Trauma Spectrum Response' (TSR).While acupuncture has been shown to treat some of these components effectively, the current literature is often difficult to interpret, inconsistent or of variable quality. Thus, to gauge comprehensively the effectiveness of acupuncture across TSR components, a systematic review of reviews was conducted using the Samueli Institute's Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL(C)) methodology. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to September 2011 for systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Quality assessment was rigorously performed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 50) checklist and The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Adherence to the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials in Acupuncture (STRICTA) criteria was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1,480 citations identified by our searches, 52 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, all high quality except for one, met inclusion criteria for each TSR component except post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sexual function. The majority of reviews addressed most STRICTA components, but did not describe safety. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of our review, acupuncture appears to be effective for treating headaches and, although more research is needed, seems to be a promising treatment option for anxiety, sleep disturbances, depression and chronic pain. It does not, however, demonstrate any substantial treatment benefit for substance abuse. Because there were no reviews on PTSD or sexual function that met our pre-defined inclusion criteria, we cannot comment on acupuncture's effectiveness in treating these conditions. More quality data are also needed to determine whether acupuncture is appropriate for treating fatigue or cognitive difficulties. Further, while acupuncture has been shown to be generally safe, safety was not described in the majority of studies, making it difficult to provide any strong recommendations, Future research should address safety reporting in detail in order to increase our confidence in acupuncture's efficacy across the identified TSR components.