OBJECTIVES: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities.
DESIGN: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review.
RESULTS: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review.
CONCLUSION: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.
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.
OBJETIVOS: Realizar una visión general sobre las intervenciones psicológicas, ortésica, la educación del paciente, ergonomía y 1⁰ / 2⁰ cuello prevención del dolor para adultos con dolor de cuello aguda-crónica.
Estrategia de búsqueda: bases de datos informatizadas y literatura gris se hicieron búsquedas (2006-2012).
Criterios de selección: Las revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) sobre el dolor, la función / discapacidad, el efecto general percibido, se recuperaron de calidad de vida y la satisfacción del paciente.
RECOPILACIÓN DE DATOS Y AMP Dos autores independientes seleccionados, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo mediante la herramienta AMSTAR y datos extraídos. La herramienta GRADE se utilizó para evaluar el acervo probatorio y un panel externo para proporcionar revisión crítica.
Resultados principales: Se recuperaron 30 comentarios (9.5 puntuación AMSTAR) informan sobre 75 ECA con la siguiente evidencia moderada GRADO. Para el trastorno asociado latigazo aguda (WAD), un vídeo de la educación en las salas de emergencia (1RCT, 405participants] reducción del dolor favorecido a largo plazo de seguimiento ayudando así a 1 de cada 23 personas [Standard Mean Diferencia: IC -0,44 (95%: -0,66 a -0,23)). El uso de un collarín blando (2RCTs, 1278participants) no era beneficioso en el largo plazo. Para el dolor de cuello crónico, una intervención cuerpo-mente (2RCTs, 1 meta-análisis, 191participants) mejoró a corto plazo del dolor / función en 1 de 4 o 6 participantes. En los trabajadores, a 2 minutos de entrenamiento de resistencia-escápula torácica diaria (1RCT, 127participants) más de 10 semanas fue beneficioso en 1 de 4 participantes. Una serie de intervenciones psicosociales, las intervenciones del lugar de trabajo, el uso del collar y estrategias educativas de autogestión no fuera beneficioso.
Existe evidencia moderada para la cuantificación de los efectos benéficos y no benéficos de un número limitado de intervenciones para WAD agudo y el dolor crónico de cuello: Conclusiones de los revisores. Ensayos más grandes con controles más rigurosos deben orientar las intervenciones prometedoras.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
ANTECEDENTES: Este artículo es el primero de una serie que presenta la evidencia publicada fuerte para medicina física y rehabilitación (PRM) para la fecha que viene de la Colaboración Cochrane. La intención de la serie es el de estimular las ideas para las revisiones e investigaciones en áreas desatendidas de PRM.
OBJETIVO: Revisar sistemáticamente el contenido de rehabilitación de la Colaboración Cochrane sobre discapacidad debido a trastornos de la columna o los síndromes de dolor en adultos.
MÉTODOS: La Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas fue buscado al final de junio de 2013 en los artículos pertinentes de PRM sobre las discapacidades resultantes de trastornos de la columna o los síndromes de dolor en adultos. Los artículos recuperados se clasificaron de acuerdo con el enfoque de PRM: terapias activas, que requieren la participación activa de los pacientes para lograr los objetivos del tratamiento, y tratamientos pasivos, que se basan en la aplicación de fuerzas externas. La calidad de las revisiones se compara con la lista de verificación AMSTAR.
RESULTADOS: críticas sobre los trastornos de la columna vertebral o síndromes de dolor se encuentran en la parte posterior del Grupo Cochrane (CBG) y en el dolor, paliativos y el Grupo de Tratamiento de Soporte (CPPSCG). Treinta y ocho (42,8%) de 89 revisiones Cochrane en el CBG y 7 (2,4%) de 293 revisiones Cochrane en el CPPSCG fueron incluidos. Todos eran de alta calidad (rango, 8-11 puntos sobre 11 en la lista de verificación AMSTAR). El contenido de las revisiones se dan en detalle.
CONCLUSIÓN: Esta revisión presenta una visión general de la evidencia actual para PMR en el tratamiento de la discapacidad debido a trastornos de la columna o los síndromes de dolor en adultos. Dentro de PRM hay un amplio espacio para la investigación en la Colaboración Cochrane y para la producción de los estudios originales (ensayos controlados aleatorios [ECA]).
IMPACTO DE REHABILITACIÓN CLINICA: Para aplicar la práctica clínica basada en la evidencia, los médicos deben estar familiarizados con la mejor evidencia actual.
Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities.
DESIGN:
The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review.
RESULTS:
The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review.
CONCLUSION:
Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.
Síntesis amplia»Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
