Manual therapy and exercise for adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adhesive capsulitis (AC) affects approximately 1% of the general population. Current research lacks clear guidance on the dosage of manual therapy and exercise interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of AC, with a secondary aim of describing the available literature present on the dosage of interventions.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized clinical/quasi-experimental trials with complete data analysis and no limits on date of publication, published in English, recruited participants >18 years of age with primary adhesive capsulitis, that had at least two groups with one group receiving manual therapy (MT) alone, exercise alone, or MT and exercise, that included at least one outcome measure of pain, disability, or external rotation range of motion, and that had dosage of visits clearly defined. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Pedro, and clinicaltrials.gov. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 Tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to provide an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible, and dosage was discussed in narrative form.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. All meta-analyses revealed non-significant effects of pain, disability, and external rotation range of motion at short- and long-term follow-up, with an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to low.

CONCLUSION

Non-significant findings with low-to-very-low-quality of evidence were found across meta-analyses, preventing seamless transition of research evidence to clinical practice. Lack of consistency in study designs, manual therapy techniques, dosing parameters, and duration of care impedes the ability to make strong recommendations regarding optimal dosage of physical therapy for individuals with AC.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.