Dataset Information

Corticosteroid injections for painful shoulder: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are no systematic reviews of corticosteroids for shoulder pain that calculate the numbers needed to treat.

Aim

We wished to determine the effectiveness in terms of improvement of symptoms of intra-articular and subacromial injections of corticosteroid for rotator cuff tendonitis and frozen shoulder.

Design of study

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Method

Data sources included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, EMBASE, hand searches and author contacts. The review methods required any randomised controlled trial in which the effectiveness of subacromial or intra-articular steroid injections versus placebo and versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, could be ascertained. The outcome was improvement of symptoms. The data abstraction was done independently, as was the validity assessment. The data was pooled using Review Manager 4.1.

Results

Seven studies were reviewed for corticosteroids versus placebo and three for corticosteroids versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The relative risk for improvement for subacromial corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff tendonitis was 3.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94 to 4.87). The number needed to treat based on the pooled relative risk was 3.3 (95% CI = 1.8 to 7.7) patients to obtain one improvement. The relative risk for high dose (50 mg of prednisone or more) was 5.9 (95% CI = 2.8 to 12.6). The relative risk for improvement with steroids compared with NSAIDs was 1.43 (95% CI = 0.95 to 2.16). The number needed to treat for corticosteroids versus NSAIDs was 2.5 (95% CI = 1 to 9) for one significant study. The relative risks for intra-articular steroid injection for rotator cuff tendonitis were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendonitis up to a 9-month period. They are also probably more effective than NSAID medication. Higher doses may be better than lower doses for subacromial corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff tendonitis.

SUBMITTER: Arroll B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1463095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Variations in corticosteroid/anesthetic doses for injecting shoulder conditions were examined among orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, and primary-care sports medicine (PCSMs) and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMRs) physicians to provide data needed for documenting inter-group differences for establishing uniform injection guidelines. METHODS: 264 surveys, sent to these physicians in our tri-state area of the western United States, addressed corticosteroid/anesthetic doses and types used for subacromial impingement, degenerative glenohumeral and acromioclavicular arthritis, biceps tendinitis, and peri-scapular trigger points. They were asked about preferences regarding: 1) fluorinated vs. non-fluorinated corticosteroids, 2) acetate vs. phosphate types, 3) patient age, and 4) adjustments for special considerations including young athletes and diabetics. RESULTS: 169 (64% response rate, RR) surveys were returned: 105/163 orthopaedic surgeons (64%RR), 44/77 PCSMs/PMRs (57%RR), 20/24 rheumatologists (83%RR). Although corticosteroid doses do not differ significantly between specialties (p > 0.3), anesthetic volumes show broad variations, with surgeons using larger volumes. Although 29% of PCSMs/PMRs, 44% rheumatologists, and 41% surgeons exceed "recommended" doses for the acromioclavicular joint, >98% were within recommendations for the subacromial bursa and glenohumeral joint. Depo-Medrol(R) (methylprednisolone acetate) and Kenalog(R) (triamcinolone acetonide) are most commonly used. More rheumatologists (80%) were aware that there are acetate and phosphate types of corticosteroids as compared to PCSMs/PMRs (76%) and orthopaedists (60%). However, relatively fewer rheumatologists (25%) than PCSMs/PMRs (32%) or orthopaedists (32%) knew that phosphate types are more soluble. Fluorinated corticosteroids, which can be deleterious to soft tissues, were used with these frequencies for the biceps sheath: 17% rheumatologists, 8% PCSMs/PMRs, 37% orthopaedists. Nearly 85% use the same non-fluorinated corticosteroid for all injections; <10% make adjustments for diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: Variations between specialists in anesthetic doses suggest that surgeons (who use significantly larger volumes) emphasize determining the percentage of pain attributable to the injected region. Alternatively, this might reflect a more profound knowledge that non-surgeons specialists have of the potentially adverse cardiovascular effects of these agents. Variations between these specialists in corticosteroid/anesthetic doses and/or types, and their use in some special situations (e.g., diabetics), bespeak the need for additional investigations aimed at establishing uniform injection guidelines, and for identifying knowledge deficiencies that warrant advanced education.

Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroid injections can be performed blind (landmark-guided) or with image guidance, and this may account for variable clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of image-guided versus blind corticosteroid injections in improving pain and function among adults with shoulder pain.MethodsMEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and EMBASE were searched to May 2010. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies of shortlisted articles. Search items included blind, landmark, anatomical, clinical exam, image-guided, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, steroid injection, frozen shoulder, random allocation, randomized controlled trial (RCT) and clinical trial.Randomized controlled studies comparing image-guided versus blind (landmark-guided) corticosteroid shoulder injections that examined pain, function and/or adverse events were included. Independent extraction was done by two authors using a form with pre-specified data fields, including risk of bias appraisal. Conflicts were resolved by discussion. The decision to pool data was based on assessment of clinical design homogeneity. When warranted, studies were pooled under a random-effects model.ResultsTwo RCTs for pain, function and adverse events (n = 101) met eligibility criteria. No serious threats to validity were found. Both trials compared ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided injections and were judged similar in clinical design. Low to moderate heterogeneity was observed: shoulder pain I2 = 60%, function I2 = 22%. A meta-analysis demonstrated greater improvement with ultrasound-guided injections at 6 weeks after injection in both pain (mean difference = 2.23 [95% CI: 1.27, 3.18]), as assessed with a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale, and shoulder function (standardised mean difference = 1.09 [95% CI: 0.61, 1.57]) as assessed with shoulder function scores. Although more adverse events (all mild) were reported with landmark-guided injections, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.20 [95% CI: 0.04, 1.13]).This review was only based on two moderate-sized trials. Blinding of patients was not performed in both trials, causing some risk of bias in outcome assessment since primary endpoints were wholly or partially patient-reported.ConclusionThere is a paucity of RCTs on image-guided versus landmark-guided corticosteroid shoulder injections examining pain, function and adverse events. In this review, patients who underwent image-guided (ultrasound) injections had statistically significant greater improvement in shoulder pain and function at 6 weeks after injection. Image-guided (ultrasound) corticosteroid injections potentially offer a significantly greater clinical improvement over blind (landmark-guided) injections in adults with shoulder pain. However, this apparent benefit requires confirmation from further studies (adequately-powered and well-executed RCTs).

Project description:BackgroundThe ability of injection of corticosteroids into the subacromial space to relieve pain ascribed to rotator cuff tendinosis is debated. The number of patients who have an injection before one gets relief beyond what a placebo provides is uncertain.Questions/purposesWe asked: (1) Do corticosteroid injections reduce pain in patients with rotator cuff tendinosis 3 months after injection, and if so, what is the number needed to treat (NNT)? (2) Are multiple injections better than one single injection with respect to pain reduction at 3 months?MethodsWe systematically searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff tendinosis compared with a placebo injection. Eligible studies had at least 10 adults and used pain intensity as an outcome measure. The Hedges's g as adjusted pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) (which expresses the size of the intervention effect in each study relative to the total variability observed among pooled studies) and NNT were calculated at assessment points less than 1 month, 1-2 months, and 2-3 months. The protocol of this study was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Eleven studies of 726 patients satisfied our criteria for data pooling. Three studies containing 292 patients used repeat injections. A random effects model was used owing to substantial heterogeneity among studies. The funnel plot indicated the possibility of some missing studies, but Orwin's fail-safe N and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill suggested that missing studies would not significantly affect the results.ResultsCorticosteroid injection did not reduce pain intensity in adult patients with rotator cuff tendinosis more than a placebo injection at the 3-month assessment. A small transient pain relief occurred at the assessment between 4 and 8 weeks with a SMD of 0.52 (range, 0.27-0.78) (p < 0.001). At least five patients must be treated for one patient's pain to be transiently reduced to no more than mild. Multiple injections were not found to be more effective than a single injection at any time.ConclusionsCorticosteroid injections provide-at best-minimal transient pain relief in a small number of patients with rotator cuff tendinosis and cannot modify the natural course of the disease. Given the discomfort, cost, and potential to accelerate tendon degeneration associated with corticosteroids, they have limited appeal. Their wide use may be attributable to habit, underappreciation of the placebo effect, incentive to satisfy rather than discuss a patient's drive toward physical intervention, or for remuneration, rather than their utility.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundIntra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.MethodsAll published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.ResultsIncluded were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).ConclusionsIA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.Prospero trial registration numberCRD42020181928 .

Project description:Corticosteroid (CS) injections are a frequently used treatment modality for lateral epicondylitis (LE) despite an increasing number of studies suggesting their lack of efficacy. The objective of this study was to review the annual utilization of CS injections for treatment of LE, as well as that of other nonsurgical treatments and surgical treatments, to understand how recent publications have affected the practice of physicians in treating LE. Patients with LE from 2010 to 2017 were identified within a national insurance database and grouped by treatment modalities of CS injections, physical therapy, bracing treatment, and surgery. Epidemiologic and demographic data were reported using descriptive statistics. The number of patients receiving each treatment and the number of CS injections per patient were quantified for each year, and annual trends were analyzed using logistic regression. Among 80,169 qualifying patients, 16,476 received CS injections, 12,180 received physical therapy, 1,874 received bracing treatment, and 2,650 underwent surgery, with patients receiving multiple modalities being members of each respective group. We found a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with LE receiving CS injections from 23.3% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2017 (R2 = 0.956, P < 0.001). Interestingly, the number of CS injections per patient increased during this period from 1.33 to 1.83 (R2 = 0.843, P = 0.001). No notable changes in utilization trends for other modalities were found. Overall, our data support a decline in the use of CS injection as a treatment modality for LE from 2010 to 2017. Although correlational, this trend may reflect the increasing body of published evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of CS injections for the treatment of LE. In addition, the increasing number of injections per patient among those who received injections contrasts with the overall decrease in steroid utilization among all patients. Further study is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind these trends.