1
|
Kustra-Mulder A, Löwe B, Weigel A. Healthcare-related factors influencing symptom persistence, deterioration, or improvement in patients with persistent somatic symptoms: A scoping review of European studies. J Psychosom Res 2023; 174:111485. [PMID: 37716128 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/18/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This scoping review explored healthcare-related factors associated with symptom persistence, deterioration, or improvement in patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) across Europe. METHODS Articles were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO by combining terms of PSS and healthcare-related factors. Studies published in English, German, Polish, or Dutch between 2000 and 2022 were included. Healthcare-related factors associated with PSS symptom course were investigated, and study quality assessed (Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Checklist, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). RESULTS Of 8386 identified studies, 56 were included in the analysis. A significant knowledge gap was evident, as most studies lacked comprehensive healthcare descriptions with particularly unclear definitions of "treatments as usual" in RCTs. The only extractable healthcare factor according to Andersen's Behavioral Model was the treatment setting. Rates of PSS improvement split by care-levels were 38% in primary, 44% in secondary, 25% in mixed, and 71% in specialized care. Persistence rates were 57%, 50%, 75%, and 29% respectively. Deterioration was observed in 5% of primary and 6% of secondary care studies. Studies were skewed toward the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review shed light on the association between care levels and symptom outcomes in PSS patients. However, limited information in the current studies constrained our exploration of associations with other factors and symptom outcomes. Important aspects, like care availability, referral processes, and insurance coverage, are yet to be elucidated. Addressing these gaps is pivotal for developing targeted treatments across Europe, ultimately enhancing PSS patients' outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra Kustra-Mulder
- Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
| | - Bernd Löwe
- Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| | - Angelika Weigel
- Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Foerster Z, Kleinmann B, Schlueter N, Vach K, Wolter T. Multimodal pain therapy for persistent idiopathic facial pain - a pilot study. Biopsychosoc Med 2022; 16:25. [PMID: 36494736 PMCID: PMC9733036 DOI: 10.1186/s13030-022-00254-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Persistent Idiopathic Facial Pain (PIFP) is a pain syndrome with missing evidence-based therapy recommendations. According to the biopsychosocial pain model, multidisciplinary pain treatment (MPT) offers a promising therapeutic option for chronic pain syndromes. MPT is an interprofessional treatment procedure, consisting of medical, physiotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic treatment units, which has not yet been studied in PIFP. METHODS This retrospective study included 25 patients with PIFP, who had been treated with MPT. Pain intensity on the numerical rating scale (NRS), perceived disability, habitual well-being, as well as anxiety/depression and stress scales were recorded. Moreover, the patients evaluated the efficacy of each type of the single therapeutic interventions. RESULTS There was a highly significant decrease in the characteristic pain intensity. Also habitual well-being improved significantly, as did anxiety and depression. The perceived disability and stress also improved, but without statistical significance. Physiotherapy was rated as the most effective therapeutic unit. Among the medical measures, consultations took first place (40% of the participants). Nearly three-fourths of the patients (72%) would recommend MPT. CONCLUSION The present study shows beneficial outcomes in patients with PIFP following MPT. Patients evaluate physiotherapeutic treatment as particularly efficacious. Therefore, MPT can be considered as a therapeutic option in patients with PIFP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zita Foerster
- grid.5963.9Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str, 10779106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Barbara Kleinmann
- grid.5963.9Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str, 10779106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nadine Schlueter
- grid.5963.9Division for Cariology, Department for operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str, 10779106 Freiburg, Germany ,grid.10423.340000 0000 9529 9877Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Kirstin Vach
- grid.5963.9Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str, 10779106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Tilman Wolter
- grid.5963.9Interdisciplinary Pain Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str, 10779106 Freiburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kundakci B, Kaur J, Goh SL, Hall M, Doherty M, Zhang W, Abhishek A. Efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions for individual features of fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Pain 2022; 163:1432-1445. [PMID: 34813518 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Fibromyalgia is a highly heterogeneous condition, but the most common symptoms are widespread pain, fatigue, poor sleep, and low mood. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended as first-line treatment of fibromyalgia. However which interventions are effective for the different symptoms is not well understood. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life. Seven databases were searched from their inception until June 1, 2020. Randomised controlled trials comparing any nonpharmacological intervention to usual care, waiting list, or placebo in people with fibromyalgia aged >16 years were included without language restriction. Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was the primary outcome measure. Standardised mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated using random effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated using the modified Cochrane tool. Of the 16,251 studies identified, 167 randomised controlled trials (n = 11,012) assessing 22 nonpharmacological interventions were included. Exercise, psychological treatments, multidisciplinary modality, balneotherapy, and massage improved FIQ. Subgroup analysis of different exercise interventions found that all forms of exercise improved pain (effect size [ES] -0.72 to -0.96) and depression (ES -0.35 to -1.22) except for flexibility exercise. Mind-body and strengthening exercises improved fatigue (ES -0.77 to -1.00), whereas aerobic and strengthening exercises improved sleep (ES -0.74 to -1.33). Psychological treatments including cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness improved FIQ, pain, sleep, and depression (ES -0.35 to -0.55) but not fatigue. The findings of this study suggest that nonpharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia should be individualised according to the predominant symptom.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burak Kundakci
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- cCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Jaspreet Kaur
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Siew Li Goh
- Sports Medicine Unit, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Michelle Hall
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Doherty
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Weiya Zhang
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Abhishek Abhishek
- Academic Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Pain Centre Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Thorpe J, Shum B, Moore RA, Wiffen PJ, Gilron I. Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 2:CD010585. [PMID: 29457627 PMCID: PMC6491103 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010585.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joelle Thorpe
- Queen's UniversityAnesthesiology & Perioperative MedicineKingstonONCanada
| | - Bonnie Shum
- Queen's UniversityAnesthesiology & Perioperative MedicineKingstonONCanada
| | | | | | - Ian Gilron
- Queen's UniversityDepartments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine & Biomedical & Molecular Sciences76 Stuart StreetVictory 2 PavillionKingstonONCanadaK7L 2V7
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bidonde J, Busch AJ, van der Spuy I, Tupper S, Kim SY, Boden C. Whole body vibration exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9:CD011755. [PMID: 28950401 PMCID: PMC6483692 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011755.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Exercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined whole body vibration (WBV) exercise as use of a vertical or rotary oscillating platform as an exercise stimulus while the individual engages in sustained static positioning or dynamic movements. The individual stands on the platform, and oscillations result in vibrations transmitted to the subject through the legs. This review is one of a series of reviews that replaces the first review published in 2002. OBJECTIVES To evaluate benefits and harms of WBV exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2016, unrestricted by language, to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria including a WBV intervention versus control or another intervention. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessments, and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences. MAIN RESULTS We included four studies involving 150 middle-aged female participants from one country. Two studies had two treatment arms (71 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise plus relaxation versus mixed exercise plus relaxation and placebo WBV versus control, and WBV plus mixed exercise versus mixed exercise and control; two studies had three treatment arms (79 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise versus control and mixed relaxation placebo WBV. We judged the overall risk of bias as low for selection (random sequence generation), detection (objectively measured outcomes), attrition, and other biases; as unclear for selection bias (allocation concealment); and as high for performance, detection (self-report outcomes), and selective reporting biases.The WBV versus control comparison reported on three major outcomes assessed at 12 weeks post intervention based on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) (0 to 100 scale, lower score is better). Results for HRQL in the control group at end of treatment (59.13) showed a mean difference (MD) of -3.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] -10.81 to 3.35) for absolute HRQL, or improvement of 4% (11% better to 3% worse) and relative improvement of 6.7% (19.6% better to 6.1% worse). Results for withdrawals indicate that 14 per 100 and 10 per 100 in the intervention and control groups, respectively, withdrew from the intervention (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.67; absolute change 4%, 95% CI 16% fewer to 24% more; relative change 43% more, 95% CI 73% fewer to 667% more). The only adverse event reported was acute pain in the legs, for which one participant dropped out of the program. We judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes as very low. This study did not measure pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, or physical function. No outcomes in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance.The WBV plus mixed exercise (aerobic, strength, flexibility, and relaxation) versus control study (N = 21) evaluated symptoms at six weeks post intervention using the FIQ. Results for HRQL at end of treatment (59.64) showed an MD of -16.02 (95% CI -31.57 to -0.47) for absolute HRQL, with improvement of 16% (0.5% to 32%) and relative change in HRQL of 24% (0.7% to 47%). Data showed a pain intensity MD of -28.22 (95% CI -43.26 to -13.18) for an absolute difference of 28% (13% to 43%) and a relative change of 39% improvement (18% to 60%); as well as a fatigue MD of -33 (95% CI -49 to -16) for an absolute difference of 33% (16% to 49%) and relative difference of 47% (95% CI 23% to 60%); and a stiffness MD of -26.27 (95% CI -42.96 to -9.58) for an absolute difference of 26% (10% to 43%) and a relative difference of 36.5% (23% to 60%). All-cause withdrawals occurred in 8 per 100 and 33 per 100 withdrawals in the intervention and control groups, respectively (two studies, N = 46; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.12) for an absolute risk difference of 24% (3% to 51%). One participant exhibited a mild anxiety attack at the first session of WBV. No studies in this comparison reported on physical function. Several outcomes (based on the findings of one study) in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance: HRQL, pain intensity, fatigue, and stiffness, which improved by 16%, 39%, 46%, and 36%, respectively. We found evidence of very low quality for all outcomes.The WBV plus mixed exercise versus other exercise provided very low quality evidence for all outcomes. Investigators evaluated outcomes on a 0 to 100 scale (lower score is better) for pain intensity (one study, N = 23; MD -16.36, 95% CI -29.49 to -3.23), HRQL (two studies, N = 49; MD -6.67, 95% CI -14.65 to 1.31), fatigue (one study, N = 23; MD -14.41, 95% CI -29.47 to 0.65), stiffness (one study, N = 23; MD -12.72, 95% CI -26.90 to 1.46), and all-cause withdrawal (three studies, N = 77; RR 0.72, 95% CI -0.17 to 3.11). Adverse events reported for the three studies included one anxiety attack at the first session of WBV and one dropout from the comparison group ("other exercise group") due to an injury that was not related to the program. No studies reported on physical function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether WBV or WBV in addition to mixed exercise is superior to control or another intervention for women with fibromyalgia remains uncertain. The quality of evidence is very low owing to imprecision (few study participants and wide confidence intervals) and issues related to risk of bias. These trials did not measure major outcomes such as pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, and physical function. Overall, studies were few and were very small, which prevented meaningful estimates of harms and definitive conclusions about WBV safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Bidonde
- Norwegian Institute of Public HealthPO Box 4404 NydalenOsloNorway0403
| | - Angela J Busch
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | - Ina van der Spuy
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | | | - Soo Y Kim
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | - Catherine Boden
- University of SaskatchewanLeslie and Irene Dube Health Sciences Library, University LibraryRm 1400 Health Sciences Building 104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonCanadaS7N 5E5
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bidonde J, Busch AJ, Schachter CL, Overend TJ, Kim SY, Góes SM, Boden C, Foulds HJA. Aerobic exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD012700. [PMID: 28636204 PMCID: PMC6481524 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 84] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for people with fibromyalgia that will replace the "Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome" review first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES • To evaluate the benefits and harms of aerobic exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia• To assess the following specific comparisons ० Aerobic versus control conditions (eg, treatment as usual, wait list control, physical activity as usual) ० Aerobic versus aerobic interventions (eg, running vs brisk walking) ० Aerobic versus non-exercise interventions (eg, medications, education) We did not assess specific comparisons involving aerobic exercise versus other exercise interventions (eg, resistance exercise, aquatic exercise, flexibility exercise, mixed exercise). Other systematic reviews have examined or will examine these comparisons (Bidonde 2014; Busch 2013). SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry up to June 2016, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared aerobic training interventions (dynamic physical activity that increases breathing and heart rate to submaximal levels for a prolonged period) versus no exercise or another intervention. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed a risk of bias assessment, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences between groups. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 RCTs (839 people). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (owing to lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes) and had low risk of attrition and reporting bias. We prioritized the findings when aerobic exercise was compared with no exercise control and present them fully here.Eight trials (with 456 participants) provided low-quality evidence for pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function; and moderate-quality evidence for withdrawals and HRQL at completion of the intervention (6 to 24 weeks). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and were expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs)/standardized mean differences (SMDs) indicate improvement). Effects for aerobic exercise versus control were as follows: HRQL: mean 56.08; five studies; N = 372; MD -7.89, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.55; absolute improvement of 8% (3% to 13%) and relative improvement of 15% (5% to 24%); pain intensity: mean 65.31; six studies; N = 351; MD -11.06, 95% CI -18.34 to -3.77; absolute improvement of 11% (95% CI 4% to 18%) and relative improvement of 18% (7% to 30%); stiffness: mean 69; one study; N = 143; MD -7.96, 95% CI -14.95 to -0.97; absolute difference in improvement of 8% (1% to 15%) and relative change in improvement of 11.4% (21.4% to 1.4%); physical function: mean 38.32; three studies; N = 246; MD -10.16, 95% CI -15.39 to -4.94; absolute change in improvement of 10% (15% to 5%) and relative change in improvement of 21.9% (33% to 11%); and fatigue: mean 68; three studies; N = 286; MD -6.48, 95% CI -14.33 to 1.38; absolute change in improvement of 6% (12% improvement to 0.3% worse) and relative change in improvement of 8% (16% improvement to 0.4% worse). Pooled analysis resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of moderate quality for withdrawals (17 per 100 and 20 per 100 in control and intervention groups, respectively; eight studies; N = 456; RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.89 to 1.77; absolute change of 5% more withdrawals with exercise (3% fewer to 12% more).Three trials provided low-quality evidence on long-term effects (24 to 208 weeks post intervention) and reported that benefits for pain and function persisted but did not for HRQL or fatigue. Withdrawals were similar, and investigators did not assess stiffness and adverse events.We are uncertain about the effects of one aerobic intervention versus another, as the evidence was of low to very low quality and was derived from single trials only, precluding meta-analyses. Similarly, we are uncertain of the effects of aerobic exercise over active controls (ie, education, three studies; stress management training, one study; medication, one study) owing to evidence of low to very low quality provided by single trials. Most studies did not measure adverse events; thus we are uncertain about the risk of adverse events associated with aerobic exercise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS When compared with control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that aerobic exercise probably improves HRQL and all-cause withdrawal, and low-quality evidence suggests that aerobic exercise may slightly decrease pain intensity, may slightly improve physical function, and may lead to little difference in fatigue and stiffness. Three of the reported outcomes reached clinical significance (HRQL, physical function, and pain). Long-term effects of aerobic exercise may include little or no difference in pain, physical function, and all-cause withdrawal, and we are uncertain about long-term effects on remaining outcomes. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of included trials and participants across trials, and because of issues related to unclear and high risks of bias (performance, selection, and detection biases). Aerobic exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), although evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Bidonde
- Norwegian Institute of Public HealthPO Box 4404 NydalenOsloNorway0403
| | - Angela J Busch
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | | | - Tom J Overend
- University of Western OntarioSchool of Physical TherapyElborn College, Room 1588,School of Physical Therapy, University of Western OntarioLondonONCanadaN6G 1H1
| | - Soo Y Kim
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | - Suelen M. Góes
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy, College of MedicineRoom 3400, E‐wing Health Science Building 104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonSaskatchewanCanadaS7N 2Z4
| | - Catherine Boden
- University of SaskatchewanLeslie and Irene Dube Health Sciences Library, University LibraryRm 1400 Health Sciences Building 104 Clinic PlaceSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 5E5
| | - Heather JA Foulds
- University of SaskatchewanCollege of Kinesiology87 Campus RoadSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 5B2
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Castelnuovo G, Giusti EM, Manzoni GM, Saviola D, Gatti A, Gabrielli S, Lacerenza M, Pietrabissa G, Cattivelli R, Spatola CAM, Corti S, Novelli M, Villa V, Cottini A, Lai C, Pagnini F, Castelli L, Tavola M, Torta R, Arreghini M, Zanini L, Brunani A, Capodaglio P, D'Aniello GE, Scarpina F, Brioschi A, Priano L, Mauro A, Riva G, Repetto C, Regalia C, Molinari E, Notaro P, Paolucci S, Sandrini G, Simpson SG, Wiederhold B, Tamburin S. Psychological Treatments and Psychotherapies in the Neurorehabilitation of Pain: Evidences and Recommendations from the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation. Front Psychol 2016; 7:115. [PMID: 26924998 PMCID: PMC4759289 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2015] [Accepted: 01/21/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is increasingly recognized that treating pain is crucial for effective care within neurological rehabilitation in the setting of the neurological rehabilitation. The Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation was constituted with the purpose identifying best practices for us in this context. Along with drug therapies and physical interventions, psychological treatments have been proven to be some of the most valuable tools that can be used within a multidisciplinary approach for fostering a reduction in pain intensity. However, there is a need to elucidate what forms of psychotherapy could be effectively matched with the specific pathologies that are typically addressed by neurorehabilitation teams. OBJECTIVES To extensively assess the available evidence which supports the use of psychological therapies for pain reduction in neurological diseases. METHODS A systematic review of the studies evaluating the effect of psychotherapies on pain intensity in neurological disorders was performed through an electronic search using PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Based on the level of evidence of the included studies, recommendations were outlined separately for the different conditions. RESULTS The literature search yielded 2352 results and the final database included 400 articles. The overall strength of the recommendations was medium/low. The different forms of psychological interventions, including Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, cognitive or behavioral techniques, Mindfulness, hypnosis, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Brief Interpersonal Therapy, virtual reality interventions, various forms of biofeedback and mirror therapy were found to be effective for pain reduction in pathologies such as musculoskeletal pain, fibromyalgia, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Central Post-Stroke pain, Phantom Limb Pain, pain secondary to Spinal Cord Injury, multiple sclerosis and other debilitating syndromes, diabetic neuropathy, Medically Unexplained Symptoms, migraine and headache. CONCLUSIONS Psychological interventions and psychotherapies are safe and effective treatments that can be used within an integrated approach for patients undergoing neurological rehabilitation for pain. The different interventions can be specifically selected depending on the disease being treated. A table of evidence and recommendations from the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation is also provided in the final part of the paper.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gianluca Castelnuovo
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | | | - Gian Mauro Manzoni
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Faculty of Psychology, eCampus UniversityNovedrate (Como), Italy
| | - Donatella Saviola
- Cardinal Ferrari Rehabilitation Center, Santo Stefano Rehabilitation IstituteFontanellato, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Giada Pietrabissa
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Roberto Cattivelli
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Chiara A. M. Spatola
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Stefania Corti
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Margherita Novelli
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Valentina Villa
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | | | - Carlo Lai
- Department of Dynamic and Clinical PsychologySapienza University of Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Pagnini
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Harvard UniversityCambridge, MA, USA
| | - Lorys Castelli
- Department of Psychology, University of TurinTurin, Italy
| | | | - Riccardo Torta
- Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini”University of Turin, Italy
| | - Marco Arreghini
- Rehabilitation Unit, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Loredana Zanini
- Rehabilitation Unit, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Amelia Brunani
- Rehabilitation Unit, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Paolo Capodaglio
- Rehabilitation Unit, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Guido E. D'Aniello
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Federica Scarpina
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini”University of Turin, Italy
| | - Andrea Brioschi
- Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Priano
- Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini”University of Turin, Italy
- Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Alessandro Mauro
- Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini”University of Turin, Italy
- Department of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Riva
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Claudia Repetto
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Camillo Regalia
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Enrico Molinari
- Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, San Giuseppe HospitalVerbania, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Catholic University of MilanMilan, Italy
| | - Paolo Notaro
- “Pain Center II Level - Department of Surgery” - ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano NiguardaMilano, Italy
| | | | - Giorgio Sandrini
- Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, C. Mondino National Neurological Institute, University of PaviaPavia, Italy
| | - Susan G. Simpson
- School of Psychology, Social Work and Social PolicyUniversity of South Australia, Australia
| | | | - Stefano Tamburin
- Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of VeronaVerona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bidonde J, Busch AJ, Webber SC, Schachter CL, Danyliw A, Overend TJ, Richards RS, Rader T. Aquatic exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD011336. [PMID: 25350761 PMCID: PMC10638613 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an instructor). We defined aquatic training as exercising in a pool while standing at waist, chest, or shoulder depth. This review is part of the update of the 'Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome' review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007. OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of aquatic exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and AMED, as well as other sources (i.e., reference lists from key journals, identified articles, meta-analyses, and reviews of all types of treatment for fibromyalgia) from inception to October 2013. Using Cochrane methods, we screened citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Subsequently, we identified aquatic exercise training studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Selection criteria were: a) full-text publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria, and b) between-group data for an aquatic intervention and a control or other intervention. We excluded studies if exercise in water was less than 50% of the full intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data (24 outcomes), of which we designated seven as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, stiffness, muscle strength, submaximal cardiorespiratory function, withdrawal rates and adverse effects. We resolved discordance through discussion. We evaluated interventions using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out meta-analysis. In addition, we set and used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences. MAIN RESULTS We included 16 aquatic exercise training studies (N = 881; 866 women and 15 men). Nine studies compared aquatic exercise to control, five studies compared aquatic to land-based exercise, and two compared aquatic exercise to a different aquatic exercise program.We rated the risk of bias related to random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias), and other bias as low. We rated blinding of participants and personnel (selection and performance bias) and allocation concealment (selection bias) as low risk and unclear. The assessment of the evidence showed limitations related to imprecision, high statistical heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Aquatic versus controlWe found statistically significant improvements (P value < 0.05) in all of the major outcomes. Based on a 100-point scale, multidimensional function improved by six units (MD -5.97, 95% CI -9.06 to -2.88; number needed to treat (NNT) 5, 95% CI 3 to 9), self reported physical function by four units (MD -4.35, 95% CI -7.77 to -0.94; NNT 6, 95% CI 3 to 22), pain by seven units (MD -6.59, 95% CI -10.71 to -2.48; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 8), and stiffness by 18 units (MD -18.34, 95% CI -35.75 to -0.93; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 24) more in the aquatic than the control groups. The SMD for muscle strength as measured by knee extension and hand grip was 0.63 standard deviations higher compared to the control group (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 12) and cardiovascular submaximal function improved by 37 meters on six-minute walk test (95% CI 4.14 to 69.92). Only two major outcomes, stiffness and muscle strength, met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance (improved by 27% and 37% respectively). Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and control groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects reported. Aquatic versus land-basedThere were no statistically significant differences between interventions for multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain or stiffness: 0.91 units (95% CI -4.01 to 5.83), -5.85 units (95% CI -12.33 to 0.63), -0.75 units (95% CI -10.72 to 9.23), and two units (95% CI -8.88 to 1.28) respectively (all based on a 100-point scale), or in submaximal cardiorespiratory function (three seconds on a 100-meter walk test, 95% CI -1.77 to 7.77). We found a statistically significant difference between interventions for strength, favoring land-based training (2.40 kilo pascals grip strength, 95% CI 4.52 to 0.28). None of the outcomes in the aquatic versus land comparison reached clinically relevant differences of 15%. Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and land groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects in either group. Aquatic versus aquatic (Ai Chi versus stretching in the water, exercise in pool water versus exercise in sea water)Among the major outcomes the only statistically significant difference between interventions was for stiffness, favoring Ai Chi (1.00 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Low to moderate quality evidence relative to control suggests that aquatic training is beneficial for improving wellness, symptoms, and fitness in adults with fibromyalgia. Very low to low quality evidence suggests that there are benefits of aquatic and land-based exercise, except in muscle strength (very low quality evidence favoring land). No serious adverse effects were reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Bidonde
- University of SaskatchewanCommunity Health & Epidemiology107 Wiggins RdSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 5E5
| | - Angela J Busch
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy1121 College DriveSaskatoonSKCanadaS7N 0W3
| | - Sandra C Webber
- University of ManitobaCollege of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health SciencesR106‐771 McDermot AvenueWinnipegMBCanadaR3E 0T6
| | | | | | - Tom J Overend
- University of Western OntarioSchool of Physical TherapyElborn College, Room 1588,School of Physical Therapy, University of Western OntarioLondonONCanadaN6G 1H1
| | | | - Tamara Rader
- Cochrane Musculoskeletal GroupOttawa Hospital Research Institute501 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Busch AJ, Webber SC, Richards RS, Bidonde J, Schachter CL, Schafer LA, Danyliw A, Sawant A, Dal Bello‐Haas V, Rader T, Overend TJ. Resistance exercise training for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD010884. [PMID: 24362925 PMCID: PMC6544808 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010884] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread pain that leads to reduced physical function. Exercise training is commonly recommended as a treatment for management of symptoms. We examined the literature on resistance training for individuals with fibromyalgia. Resistance training is exercise performed against a progressive resistance with the intention of improving muscle strength, muscle endurance, muscle power, or a combination of these. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the benefits and harms of resistance exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. We compared resistance training versus control and versus other types of exercise training. SEARCH METHODS We searched nine electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, AMED) and other sources for published full-text articles. The date of the last search was 5 March 2013. Two review authors independently screened 1856 citations, 766 abstracts and 156 full-text articles. We included five studies that met our inclusion criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA Selection criteria included: a) randomized clinical trial, b) diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria, c) adult sample, d) full-text publication, and e) inclusion of between-group data comparing resistance training versus a control or other physical activity intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted intervention and outcome data. We resolved disagreements between the two review authors and questions regarding interpretation of study methods by discussion within the pairs or when necessary the issue was taken to the full team of 11 members. We extracted 21 outcomes of which seven were designated as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, tenderness, muscle strength, attrition rates, and adverse effects. We evaluated benefits and harms of the interventions using standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) or risk ratios or Peto odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS The literature search yielded 1865 citations with five studies meeting the selection criteria. One of the studies that had three arms contributed data for two comparisons. In the included studies, there were 219 women participants with fibromyalgia, 95 of whom were assigned to resistance training programs. Three randomized trials compared 16 to 21 weeks of moderate- to high-intensity resistance training versus a control group. Two studies compared eight weeks of progressive resistance training (intensity as tolerated) using free weights or body weight resistance exercise versus aerobic training (ie, progressive treadmill walking, indoor and outdoor walking), and one study compared 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training using hand weights (1 to 3 lbs (0.45 to 1.36 kg)) and elastic tubing versus flexibility exercise (static stretches to major muscle groups).Statistically significant differences (MD; 95% CI) favoring the resistance training interventions over control group(s) were found in multidimensional function (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total decreased 16.75 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -23.31 to -10.19), self reported physical function (-6.29 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -10.45 to -2.13), pain (-3.3 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -6.35 to -0.26), tenderness (-1.84 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -2.6 to -1.08), and muscle strength (27.32 kg force on bilateral concentric leg extension; 95% CI 18.28 to 36.36).Differences between the resistance training group(s) and the aerobic training groups were not statistically significant for multidimensional function (5.48 on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -0.92 to 11.88), self reported physical function (-1.48 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -6.69 to 3.74) or tenderness (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.30). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.99 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67) favoring the aerobic groups.Statistically significant differences were found between a resistance training group and a flexibility group favoring the resistance training group for multidimensional function (-6.49 FIQ units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -12.57 to -0.41) and pain (-0.88 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.19), but not for tenderness (-0.46 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -1.56 to 0.64) or strength (4.77 foot pounds torque on concentric knee extension; 95% CI -2.40 to 11.94). This evidence was classified low quality due to the low number of studies and risk of bias assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in attrition rates between the interventions. In general, adverse effects were poorly recorded, but no serious adverse effects were reported. Assessment of risk of bias was hampered by poor written descriptions (eg, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors). The lack of a priori protocols and lack of care provider blinding were also identified as methodologic concerns. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence (rated as low quality) suggested that moderate- and moderate- to high-intensity resistance training improves multidimensional function, pain, tenderness, and muscle strength in women with fibromyalgia. The evidence (rated as low quality) also suggested that eight weeks of aerobic exercise was superior to moderate-intensity resistance training for improving pain in women with fibromyalgia. There was low-quality evidence that 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training was superior to flexibility exercise training in women with fibromyalgia for improvements in pain and multidimensional function. There was low-quality evidence that women with fibromyalgia can safely perform moderate- to high-resistance training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela J Busch
- University of SaskatchewanSchool of Physical Therapy1121 College DriveSaskatoonCanadaS7N 0W3
| | - Sandra C Webber
- University of ManitobaSchool of Medical Rehabilitation, Faculty of MedicineR106‐771 McDermot AvenueWinnipegCanadaR3E 0T6
| | | | - Julia Bidonde
- University of SaskatchewanCommunity Health & Epidemiology107 Wiggins RdSaskatoonCanadaS7N 5E5
| | | | - Laurel A Schafer
- Central Avenue Physiotherapy302 Central Ave. NSwift CurrentCanadaS9H 0L4
| | | | - Anuradha Sawant
- London Health Sciences CenterDepartment of Renal/Clinical Neurosciences339 Windermere RdLondonCanadaN6A 5A5
| | - Vanina Dal Bello‐Haas
- McMaster UniversitySchool of Rehabilitation Science1400 Main Street West, 403/EHamiltonCanadaL8S 1C7
| | - Tamara Rader
- Cochrane Musculoskeletal GroupUniversity of Ottawa1 Stewart StreetOttawaCanadaK1N 6N5
| | - Tom J Overend
- University of Western OntarioSchool of Physical TherapyElborn College, Room 1588,School of Physical Therapy, University of Western OntarioLondonCanadaN6G 1H1
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Affiliation(s)
- Franz Petermann
- Zentrum für Klinische Psychologie und Rehabilitation, Universität Bremen
| |
Collapse
|