OBJECTIVE: To collect the available evidence about the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education (PNE) on pain, disability, and psychosocial factors in patients with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain and central sensitization (CS).
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on Pubmed, PEDro, and CINAHL, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients ≥18 years of age with chronic MSK pain due to CS were included. No meta-analysis was conducted, and qualitative analysis was realized.
RESULTS: 15 RCTs were included. Findings were divided for diagnostic criteria (fibromyalgia-FM, chronic fatigue syndrome-CFS, low back pain-LBP, chronic spinal pain-CSP). PNE has been proposed as a single intervention or associated with other approaches, and different measures were used for the main outcomes considered. Conclusions, practice implication: PNE is effective in improving pain, disability, and psychosocial factors in patients with fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain (CLBP)-especially if associated with other therapeutic approaches-and also in patients with CFS and CSP. Overall, PNE seems to be more effective when proposed in one-to-one oral sessions and associated with reinforcement elements. However, specific eligibility criteria for chronic MSK pain due to CS are still lacking in most RCTs; therefore, for future research, it is mandatory to specify such criteria in primary studies.
The aim of our meta-analysis was to compile the available evidence to evaluate the effect of physical exercise-based therapy (PEBT) on pain, impact of the disease, quality of life (QoL) and anxiety in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), to determine the effect of different modes of physical exercise-based therapy, and the most effective dose of physical exercise-based therapy for improving each outcome. A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. The PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of physical exercise-based therapy and other treatments on pain, the impact of the disease, QoL and/or anxiety in patients with FMS were included. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% CI were estimated for all the outcome measures using random effect models. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the PEDro scale. Sixty-eight RCTs involving 5,474 participants were included. Selection, detection and performance biases were the most identified. In comparison to other therapies, at immediate assessment, physical exercise-based therapy was effective at improving pain [SMD-0.62 (95%CI, -0.78 to -0.46)], the impact of the disease [SMD-0.52 (95%CI, -0.67 to -0.36)], the physical [SMD 0.51 (95%CI, 0.33 to 0.69)] and mental dimensions of QoL [SMD 0.48 (95%CI, 0.29 to 0.67)], and the anxiety [SMD-0.36 (95%CI, -0.49 to -0.25)]. The most effective dose of physical exercise-based therapy for reducing pain was 21-40 sessions [SMD-0.83 (95%CI, 1.1--0.56)], 3 sessions/week [SMD-0.82 (95%CI, -1.2--0.48)] and 61-90 min per session [SMD-1.08 (95%CI, -1.55--0.62)]. The effect of PEBT on pain reduction was maintained up to 12 weeks [SMD-0.74 (95%CI, -1.03--0.45)]. Among patients with FMS, PEBT (including circuit-based exercises or exercise movement techniques) is effective at reducing pain, the impact of the disease and anxiety as well as increasing QoL. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021232013.
OBJECTIVE: Patient education is recommended as an integral component of the therapeutic plan for the management of chronic widespread pain (CWP) and fibromyalgia (FM). The key purpose of patient education is to increase the patient's competence to manage his or her own health requirements, encouraging self-management and a return to desired everyday activities and lifestyle. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the benefits and potential harms associated with the use of patient education as a stand-alone intervention for individuals with CWP and FM through randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHOD: On 24 November 2021 a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, American College of Rheumatology, European League Against Rheumatism, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform identified 2069 studies. After full-text screening, five RCT studies were found to be eligible for the qualitative evidence synthesis.
RESULTS: Patient education as a stand-alone intervention presented an improvement in patients' global assessment (standardized mean difference 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 1.46). When comparing patient education with usual care, no intervention, or waiting list, no differences were found for functioning, level of pain, emotional distress in regard to anxiety and depression, or pain cognition.
CONCLUSION: This review reveals the need for RCTs investigating patient education as a stand-alone intervention for patients with FM, measuring outcomes such as disease acceptance, health-related quality of life, enhancement of patients' knowledge of pain, pain coping skills, and evaluation of prioritized learning outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by persistent and widespread musculoskeletal pain. Telerehabilitation is a promising treatment for patients with fibromyalgia through long-term monitoring, intervention, supervision, consultation, and education.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of telerehabilitation in patients with fibromyalgia.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to fibromyalgia and telerehabilitation were systematically searched in the PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 13, 2022. Two independent researchers screened the literatures and evaluated the methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The outcome measures included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire scale, pain intensity, depression, pain catastrophizing, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. Pooled effect sizes were calculated by Stata SE 15.1; a fixed effects model was used when I2<50%, whereas a random effects model was used when I2≥50%.
RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs with 1242 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the telerehabilitation improved the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score (weighted mean difference -8.32, 95% CI -11.72 to -4.91; P<.001), pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.62, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.47; P<.001), depression levels (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.22; P<.001), pain catastrophizing (weighted mean difference -5.81, 95% CI -9.40 to -2.23; P=.001), and QoL (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.47; P<.001) in patients with fibromyalgia compared to control interventions. Only 1 RCT reported a mild adverse event of telerehabilitation; the other 13 RCTs did not mention this.
CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation can improve the symptoms and QoL of fibromyalgia. However, the safety of telerehabilitation remains uncertain due to the lack of sufficient evidence for the management of fibromyalgia. More rigorously designed trials are needed in the future to verify the safety and efficacy of telerehabilitation in fibromyalgia.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022338200; https://tinyurl.com/322keukv.
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.
MAIN RESULTS: This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
Childhood rheumatic diseases are a group of diseases that can affect many organs and systems, resulting in pain, joint stiffness, muscle atrophy and weakness. Physical inactivity has been reported in many childhood rheumatic diseases. There are many studies in the literature comparing the effectiveness of exercise programs in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Exercise and physical activity are considered major parts of the treatment of children with rheumatic disease. The aim of this review is to systematically present studies on physical activity and exercise programs in children with rheumatism from the last 5 years. An internet-based search of three databases-PubMed, PEDro and Medline-was conducted to find relevant studies. Two reviewers individually identified studies on the basis of their title, abstract or full text-as necessary-to determine their eligibility. Differences of opinion between the two examiners were resolved by discussion. Scientific studies of children with different rheumatic diagnoses have shown that physical activity and exercise have a significant effect on reducing the symptoms of the disease. However, the duration, frequency, method and evaluation of the exercises are still being discussed in the literature.
Objectives. This systematic review aims to summarize the existing literature on Tai Chi randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and recommend Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations. Methods. A systematic search for Tai Chi RCTs was conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2019. SPSS 20.0 software and Microsoft Excel 2019 were used to analyze the data, and the risk of bias tool in the RevMan 5.3.5 software was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs. Results. A total of 139 articles were identified, including diseased populations (95, 68.3%) and healthy populations (44, 31.7%). The diseased populations included the following 10 disease types: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue diseases (34.7%), circulatory system diseases (23.2%), mental and behavioral disorders (12.6%), nervous system diseases (11.6%), respiratory system diseases (6.3%), endocrine, nutritional or metabolic diseases (5.3%), neoplasms (3.2%), injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (1.1%), genitourinary system diseases (1.1%), and diseases of the eye and adnexa (1.1%). Tai Chi exercise prescription was generally classified as moderate intensity. The most commonly applied Tai Chi style was Yang style (92, 66.2%), and the most frequently specified Tai Chi form was simplified 24-form Tai Chi (43, 30.9%). 12 weeks and 24 weeks, 2-3 times a week, and 60 min each time was the most commonly used cycle, frequency, and time of exercise in Tai Chi exercise prescriptions. Conclusions. We recommend the more commonly used Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations based on clinical evidence of Tai Chi. Further clinical research on Tai Chi should be combined with principles of exercise prescription to conduct large-sample epidemiological studies and long-term prospective follow-up studies to provide more substantive clinical evidence for Tai Chi exercise prescriptions.
BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS: We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.
BACKGROUND: Public health guidelines suggest that physical activity can be accumulated in multiple short bouts dispersed through the day. A synthesis of the evidence for this approach is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine if exercise interventions consisting of a single bout of exercise compared with interventions comprising the same total duration, mode, and intensity of exercise accumulated over the course of the day have different effects on health outcomes in adults.
METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched (Jan 1970-29 August 2018). Two authors identified studies that evaluated the effects of a single bout of exercise compared with the same intensity, total duration, and mode of exercise accumulated in multiple bouts over the course of a day, in community-dwelling adults. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Pooled effects were reported as standardised mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies involving 1080 participants met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between accumulated and continuous groups for any cardiorespiratory fitness or blood pressure outcomes. A difference was found in body mass changes from baseline to post-intervention in favour of accumulated exercise compared with continuous (MD - 0.92 kg, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.25, I2 = 0%; five studies, 211 participants). In subgroup analyses, accumulating > 150 min of weekly exercise in multiple bouts per day resulted in small effects on body fat percentage (combined post-intervention and change from baseline values: MD - 0.87%, 95% CI - 1.71 to - 0.04, I2 = 0%; three studies, 166 participants) compared with 150 min of exercise amassed via single continuous bouts per day. There was a decrease in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with accumulated versus continuous exercise (MD - 0.39 mmol/l, 95% CI - 0.73 to - 0.06, I2 = 23%; two studies, 41 participants). No differences were observed for any other blood biomarker (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose, and fasting insulin).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between continuous and accumulated patterns of exercise in terms of effects on fitness, blood pressure, lipids, insulin and glucose. There is some evidence from a small number of studies that changes in body mass and LDL cholesterol are more favourable following the accumulated condition. Collectively our findings suggest that adults are likely to accrue similar health benefits from exercising in a single bout or accumulating activity from shorter bouts throughout the day. This review will inform public health guidelines for physical activity at the global and national levels (PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016044122).
ANTECEDENTES: Esta es una versión actualizada de la revisión original Cochrane publicada en el número 12 de 2012. Esa revisión tuvo en cuenta tanto la fibromialgia y el dolor neuropático, pero la eficacia de la amitriptilina para el dolor neuropático se trata ahora en otra revisión.La amitriptilina es un antidepresivo tricíclico que se utiliza ampliamente para el tratamiento de la fibromialgia, y se recomienda en muchas guías. Por lo general se utiliza en dosis menores que las que los fármacos actúan como antidepresivos.
Evaluar la eficacia analgésica de la amitriptilina para el alivio de la fibromialgia, y los eventos adversos asociados con su uso en ensayos clínicos.
ESTRATEGIA DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE y EMBASE de marzo de 2015, junto con las listas de referencias de los artículos recuperados, las revisiones sistemáticas anteriores y otras opiniones, y dos registros de ensayos clínicos. También utilizamos nuestra propia búsquedas manuales en la base de datos de estudios anteriores.
Criterios de selección: Se incluyeron estudios aleatorios, doble ciego, de una duración mínima de cuatro semanas de la comparación de la amitriptilina con placebo u otro tratamiento activo en la fibromialgia.
Recopilación y análisis de datos: Se extrajeron los datos de los eventos adversos y la eficacia, y dos autores del estudio examinaron los problemas de la calidad del estudio de forma independiente. Se realizó el análisis utilizando tres niveles de evidencia. pruebas de nivel primera derivada de los datos que satisfacen las mejores normas y sujetos a un riesgo mínimo de sesgo (resultado equivalente a la reducción sustancial de la intensidad del dolor, el análisis por intención de tratar, sin imputación de los abandonos actuales; por lo menos 200 participantes en la comparación, de 8 a 12 semanas de duración , diseño paralelo), segundo nivel de datos que no cumplió con uno o más de estos criterios y fueron considerados en algún riesgo de sesgo, pero con un número adecuado de la comparación y tercer nivel a partir de datos que implican un pequeño número de participantes que se considera muy probable ser parcial o usado resultados de utilidad clínica limitada, o ambos.Para la eficacia, se calculó el número necesario a tratar para beneficiar (NNT), y por el daño se calculó el número necesario a tratar para dañar (NND) para los eventos adversos y los retiros. Se utilizó un modelo de efectos fijos para el metanálisis.
Resultados principales: Se incluyeron siete estudios de la revisión anterior y dos nuevos estudios (nueve estudios, 649 participantes) de una duración de 6 a 24 semanas, se inscriben entre 22 y 208 participantes; ninguno tenía 50 o más participantes en cada brazo de tratamiento. Dos estudios utilizaron un diseño cruzado. La dosis diaria de la amitriptilina fue de 25 mg a 50 mg, y algunos estudios tenido un período de titulación inicial.No hubo primera o segunda evidencia de nivel para la amitriptilina en el tratamiento de la fibromialgia. Usando tercera evidencia dual, el riesgo relativo (RR) para el alivio del dolor de al menos 50%, o equivalente, con amitriptilina en comparación con el placebo fue de 3,0 (intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC) 1.7 a 4.9), con un NNT) de 4,1 (2,9 a 6.7) (evidencia de muy baja calidad). No hubo diferencias consistentes entre la amitriptilina y el placebo u otros comparadores activos para el alivio de los síntomas tales como fatiga, falta de sueño, calidad de vida, o puntos sensibles.Más participantes experimentaron al menos un evento adverso con amitriptilina (78%) que con placebo (47%). El RR fue de 1,5 (1,3 a 1,8) y el NND fue de 3.3 (2.5 a 4.9). retiros por eventos adversos y por todas las causas no fueron diferentes, pero la falta de eficacia de los retiros fueron más frecuentes con el placebo (12% frente al 5%; RR 0,42 (0,19 a 0,95)) (evidencia de muy baja calidad).
Conclusiones de los revisores: La amitriptilina ha sido un tratamiento de primera línea para la fibromialgia desde hace muchos años. El hecho de que no hay evidencia imparcial de apoyo para un efecto beneficioso es decepcionante, pero tiene que ser equilibrada contra año de tratamiento exitoso en muchos pacientes con fibromialgia. No existe una buena evidencia de una falta de efecto; más bien nuestra preocupación debe ser de sobreestimación del efecto del tratamiento. La amitriptilina será una opción en el tratamiento de la fibromialgia, aunque se reconoce que sólo una minoría de los pacientes va a lograr el alivio del dolor satisfactorio.Es poco probable que cualquier grandes ensayos aleatorios de la amitriptilina se llevarán a cabo en la fibromialgia para establecer la eficacia estadísticamente, o medir el tamaño del efecto.
To collect the available evidence about the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education (PNE) on pain, disability, and psychosocial factors in patients with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain and central sensitization (CS).
METHODS:
A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on Pubmed, PEDro, and CINAHL, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients ≥18 years of age with chronic MSK pain due to CS were included. No meta-analysis was conducted, and qualitative analysis was realized.
RESULTS:
15 RCTs were included. Findings were divided for diagnostic criteria (fibromyalgia-FM, chronic fatigue syndrome-CFS, low back pain-LBP, chronic spinal pain-CSP). PNE has been proposed as a single intervention or associated with other approaches, and different measures were used for the main outcomes considered. Conclusions, practice implication: PNE is effective in improving pain, disability, and psychosocial factors in patients with fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain (CLBP)-especially if associated with other therapeutic approaches-and also in patients with CFS and CSP. Overall, PNE seems to be more effective when proposed in one-to-one oral sessions and associated with reinforcement elements. However, specific eligibility criteria for chronic MSK pain due to CS are still lacking in most RCTs; therefore, for future research, it is mandatory to specify such criteria in primary studies.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
