Effectiveness of electrophysical modalities in the sensorimotor rehabilitation of radial, ulnar, and median neuropathies: A meta-analysis

The effectiveness of biophysical agents in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome- an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to summarize, synthesize, and integrate the evidence evaluating the effectiveness of biophysical agents compared to other conservative treatments, for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

METHODS

This was an overview of systematic reviews (SRs). We searched several online databases and obtained SRs relating to managing CTS using biophysical agents. Two independent researchers screened and appraised the quality of the SRs using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 appraisal tool. We extracted information related to study characteristics as well as the effectiveness of biophysical agents for CTS, the effect sizes, and between-group significances. We categorized the information based on the type of biophysical agent. We also performed a citation mapping and calculated the corrected covered area index.

RESULTS

We found 17 SRs addressing 12 different biophysical agents. The quality of the SRs was mainly critically low (n = 16) or low (n = 1). The evidence was inconclusive for the effectiveness of Low-level Laser therapy and favorable for the short-term efficacy of non-thermal ultrasound in improving symptom severity, function, pain, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, and other electrophysiological measures compared to manual therapy or placebo. Evidence was inconclusive for Extracorporeal Shockwave therapy, and favorable for the short-term effectiveness of Shortwave and Microwave Diathermy on pain and hand function. The corrected covered area index was lower than 35% indicating a low overlap of the SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings were based on low-quality primary studies, with an unclear or high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and short follow-ups. Therefore, no recommendations can be made for the long-term effectiveness of any biophysical agents. High-quality evidence is needed to support evidence-based recommendations on the use of biophysical agents in the management of CTS.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022319002, registered on 17/04/2022.

Treatment, Diagnostic Criteria and Variability of Terminology for Lateral Elbow Pain: Findings from an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background: Lateral elbow pain (LEP) represents a musculoskeletal disorder affecting the epicondyloid region of the elbow. The terminological framework of this problem in literature, to date, is confusing. This systematic review (SR) aims to analyse the panorama of the scientific literature concerning the pathogenetic framework, treatment, and clinical diagnosis of LEP. Methods: We conducted an SR according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. We performed research using the electronic Medline, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Library databases. The research started on 12 January 2022 and finished on 30 April 2022. We included all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published, in English, between 1989 and 2022. The articles’ selection was based on critical appraisal using Amstar 2. In the selected reviews we obtained the etiopathogenic terminology used to describe the symptoms, treatment, and diagnostic criteria of LEP. Results: Twenty-five SRs met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. From these SRs, 227 RCT articles were analysed and different treatments proposals were extracted, such as exercise, manipulation corticosteroid injection, and surgery. In the selected articles, 10 different terms emerged to describe LEP and 12 different clinical tests. The most common treatments detected in this SR were a conservative multimodal approach (e.g., eccentric exercises, manual therapy, acupuncture, ultrasound), then surgery or other invasive treatments (e.g., corticosteroid injection, tenotomy). The most common term detected in this SR was “lateral epicondylitis” (n = 95, 51.6%), followed by “tennis elbow” (n = 51, 28.1%) and “lateral epicondylalgia” (n = 18, 9.4%). Among the diagnostic tests were painful palpation (n = 101, 46.8%), the Cozen test (n = 91, 42.1%), the pain-free grip-strength test (n = 41, 19.0%), and the Maudsley test (n = 48, 22.2%). A total of 43.1% of RCTs (n = 96) included subjects with LEP > 3 months, 40.2% (n = 85) included patients with LEP < 3 months, and 16.7% of the items (n = 35) were not specified by the inclusion criteria on the onset of symptoms. Conclusions: In this SR, a considerable terminological heterogeneity emerged in the description of LEP, associated with the lack of clear and recognised diagnostic criteria in evaluating and treating patients with lateral elbow pain.