1
|
Cancelliere C, Yu H, Southerst D, Connell G, Verville L, Bussières A, Gross DP, Pereira P, Mior S, Tricco AC, Cedraschi C, Brunton G, Nordin M, Shearer HM, Wong JJ, Hayden JA, Ogilvie R, Wang D, Côté P, Hincapié CA. Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION 2023; 33:673-686. [PMID: 37991649 PMCID: PMC10684421 DOI: 10.1007/s10926-023-10140-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol Cancelliere
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada.
| | - Hainan Yu
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Danielle Southerst
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Gaelan Connell
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Leslie Verville
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - André Bussières
- Département Chiropratique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada
- School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Québec, Canada
| | - Douglas P Gross
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Paulo Pereira
- Department of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Silvano Mior
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Department of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Christine Cedraschi
- Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University and University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Ginny Brunton
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, England, UK
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Margareta Nordin
- Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Environmental Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, USA
| | - Heather M Shearer
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Department of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada
- Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Canada
| | - Jessica J Wong
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Jill A Hayden
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Rachel Ogilvie
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Dan Wang
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Pierre Côté
- Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
- Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Cesar A Hincapié
- EBPI-UWZH Musculoskeletal Epidemiology Research Group, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- University Spine Centre Zurich (UWZH), Balgrist University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Osemlak P, Jędrzejewski G, Woźniak M, Nachulewicz P. Ultrasound evaluation of long-term outcome in boys operated on due to testicular torsion. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e26057. [PMID: 34032733 PMCID: PMC8154497 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000026057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We aimed at verifying the usefulness of spectral Doppler ultrasonography in determining development of the testis after torsion in boys.The study involved 28 patients and 30 control cases divided into 3 developmental groups: pre-pubertal, early pubertal, and pubertal. It presented surgical management in testicular torsion (TT), volume, and echogenicity of testes, as well as peak-systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity (EDV), and vascular resistance index (RI) in the capsular and intra-testicular arteries, regarding developmental groups, detorsed testes, uninvolved ones, and testes in the control group.Orchiectomy was performed in 13 boys with complete TT, in 11 lasting for over 24 hours, and in 2 lasting for 9 and 10 hours, respectively. Orchiectomy mainly involved patients aged up to 6 years, who at the time of the follow-up ultrasound belonged to the pre-pubertal group.There is no clear correlation between the type of testicular torsion, its duration, and the echogenicity of the testis. Testicular torsion has a negative effect on the volume of detorsed testis with compensatory hypertrophy of the uninvolved testis. The study represents a new approach to the issue of long-term gonadal blood supply abnormalities after treatment of testicular torsion in childhood.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paweł Osemlak
- The Department of Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology
| | - Grzegorz Jędrzejewski
- The Department of Pediatric Radiology, University Children's Hospital of Lublin, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | - Magdalena Woźniak
- The Department of Pediatric Radiology, University Children's Hospital of Lublin, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mbowe OB, Gewandter JS, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, McDermott MP. Are there really only 2 kinds of people in the world? Evaluating the distribution of change from baseline in pain clinical trials. Pain 2020; 161:195-201. [PMID: 31569143 PMCID: PMC6923574 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001708] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
It is often assumed that there are 2 types of pain patients: those who respond well to efficacious pain therapies and those who do not respond at all, with few people in the middle. This assumption is based on research that claims that changes in pain intensity have a bimodal distribution. The claim of bimodality has led to calls for a change in how pain clinical trials are designed and analyzed, eg, performing "responder" analyses instead of comparing group mean values to evaluate the treatment effect. We analyzed data from 4 clinical trials, 2 each of duloxetine and pregabalin, for chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions to critically examine the claim of bimodality of the distribution of change in pain intensity. We found that the improper construction of histograms, using unequal bin widths, was the principal flaw leading to the bimodality claim, along with the use of the oft-criticized baseline observation carried forward method for imputing missing data also serving as a contributing factor. Properly constructed histograms of absolute change in pain intensity using equal bin widths, combined with more principled methods for handling missing data, resulted in distributions that had a more unimodal appearance. Although our findings neither support nor refute the hypothesis that distinct populations of "responders" and "nonresponders" to pain interventions exist, the analyses presented in earlier work do not provide support for this hypothesis, nor for the recommendation that pain clinical trials prioritize "responder" analyses, a less efficient analysis strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar B. Mbowe
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Jennifer S. Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Dennis C. Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Robert H. Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Center for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Michael P. McDermott
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
- Center for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hamrin Senorski E, Svantesson E, Beischer S, Grassi A, Krupic F, Thomeé R, Samuelsson K. Factors Affecting the Achievement of a Patient-Acceptable Symptom State 1 Year After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study of 343 Patients From 2 Registries. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6:2325967118764317. [PMID: 29780834 PMCID: PMC5954350 DOI: 10.1177/2325967118764317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There is insufficient knowledge regarding the influence of concomitant injuries on the recovery of short-term subjective knee function after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose To determine whether patient characteristics, concomitant injuries, and graft choice during ACL reconstruction can predict which patients achieve acceptable knee function 1 year after reconstruction. Study Design Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods Data from 1 physical therapist-specific and 1 surgeon-specific register were used. Patients who had completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 1-year follow-up were included. Additional intraoperative information was extracted from a database. The primary outcome was achieving a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) for each subscale of the KOOS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used, with patient sex, age, and preinjury level of physical activity as covariates. Results A total of 343 patients (51% females) were included. The proportion of patients achieving PASS 1 year after ACL reconstruction varied between 40% and 85% among the KOOS subscales. Younger age at reconstruction and male sex provided favorable odds of achieving acceptable knee function across the KOOS subscales. Patients without cartilage injury had increased odds of achieving PASS in the KOOS sport and recreation subscale; the increase was 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.01-2.64; P = .045). Patients receiving patellar tendon autograft had a 0.41-fold (95% CI, 0.19-0.85; P = .017) decrease in odds of achieving PASS on the KOOS quality of life (QoL) subscale. In the multivariable analysis, increased odds of achieving PASS on the KOOS QoL subscale were associated with the absence of meniscal injury (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.54; P = .035), and increased odds were found for hamstring tendon autograft (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.25-5.56; P = .011). Conclusion More than half of the patients reported an acceptable symptom state on 4 of the 5 KOOS subscales 1 year after ACL reconstruction. A lack of consistency was noted related to the effect of concomitant knee injuries and graft choice on acceptable knee function. However, younger age and male sex were favorable, nonmodifiable characteristics that increased the odds of early acceptable function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Hamrin Senorski
- Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Sportrehab, Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Eleonor Svantesson
- Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Susanne Beischer
- Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Sportrehab, Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Alberto Grassi
- Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II-Lab. di Biomeccanica ed Innovazione Tecnologica, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - Ferid Krupic
- Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Department of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Roland Thomeé
- Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Sportrehab, Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Kristian Samuelsson
- Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Department of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE). OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil E O'Connell
- Brunel University LondonHealth Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Department of Clinical SciencesKingston LaneUxbridgeMiddlesexUKUB8 3PH
| | - Louise Marston
- University College LondonResearch Department of Primary Care & Population HealthRoyal Free Campus, Rowland HillLondonUKNW3 2PF
| | - Sally Spencer
- Edge Hill UniversityPostgraduate Medical InstituteSt Helens RoadOrmskirkLancashireUKL39 4QP
| | - Lorraine H DeSouza
- Brunel University LondonDepartment of Clinical Sciences/Health Ageing Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and SocietiesKingston LaneUxbridgeMiddlesexUKUB8 3PH
| | - Benedict M Wand
- The University of Notre Dame Australia FremantleSchool of Physiotherapy19 Mouat Street (PO Box 1225)PerthWest AustraliaAustralia6959
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
O'Connell NE, Marston L, Spencer S, DeSouza LH, Wand BM. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 3:CD008208. [PMID: 29547226 PMCID: PMC7039253 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008208.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE). OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil E O'Connell
- Brunel UniversityDepartment of Clinical Sciences/Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and SocietiesKingston LaneUxbridgeUKUB8 3PH
| | - Louise Marston
- University College LondonResearch Department of Primary Care & Population HealthRoyal Free Campus, Rowland HillLondonUKNW3 2PF
| | - Sally Spencer
- Edge Hill UniversityPostgraduate Medical InstituteSt Helens RoadOrmskirkUKL39 4QP
| | - Lorraine H DeSouza
- Brunel University LondonDepartment of Clinical Sciences/Health Ageing Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and SocietiesKingston LaneUxbridgeUKUB8 3PH
| | - Benedict M Wand
- The University of Notre Dame AustraliaSchool of Physiotherapy19 Mouat Street (PO Box 1225)FremantleAustralia6959
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
The burden that low back pain (LBP) presents to sufferers and society is well established. This ubiquitous condition is served by a complex global clinical marketplace offering a wide range of assessment alternatives and accompanying interventions. Yet, while the costs of care are rising, the global burden does not appear to be diminishing. Considerable effort internationally has gone into developing CPGs for LBP. The authors highlight the similarities and differences between existing CPGs for LBP, as well as strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in the implementation of guidelines generally. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(2):54-57. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0602.
Collapse
|