Dataset Information

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).

Design

Scoping review of SRs.

Methods

We searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.

Results

We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.

Conclusions

Only one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

SUBMITTER: Lorenc A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196876 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveFatigue is prominent across many long term physical health conditions. This scoping review aimed to map the fatigue intervention literature, to ascertain if certain interventions may be effective across conditions, and if novel interventions tested in specific long term conditions may be promising for other conditions.MethodsScoping review methodological frameworks were used. Electronic bibliographic databases were searched (inception to November 2016) for systematic reviews of fatigue interventions in long term conditions. Inclusion criteria were: long term physical health condition; review focus on fatigue management; objective and systematic review process; primary review outcome is fatigue. Articles focussing on surgical interventions or treatments thought to trigger fatigue were excluded. A narrative synthesis was performed.ResultsOf 115 full texts screened, 52 reviews were included. Interventions were categorised as pharmacological and non-pharmacological (exercise, psychological/behavioural and complementary medicine). Pharmacological interventions did not consistently demonstrate benefit, except for anti-TNFs and methylphenidate which may be effective at reducing fatigue. Non-pharmacological interventions such as graded exercise and fatigue-specific psychological interventions may be effective, but heterogeneous intervention components limit conclusions. 'Complementary medicine' interventions (e.g. Chinese herbal medicines) showed promise, but the possibility of publication bias must be considered.ConclusionsFurther research is necessary to inform clinical practice. The reported effectiveness of some interventions across inflammatory health conditions, such as anti-TNFs, aerobic exercise, and psychologically based approaches such as CBT, highlights a potential transdiagnostic avenue for fatigue management. More novel strategies that may be worth exploring include expressive writing and mindfulness, although the mechanisms for these in relation to fatigue are unclear. More work is needed to identify transdiagnostic mechanisms of fatigue and to design interventions based on these.

Project description:Evidence-based decision making is a hallmark of effective veterinary clinical practice. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses all are methods intended to provide transparent and replicable ways of summarizing a body of research to address an important clinical or public health issue. As these methods increasingly are being used by researchers and read by practitioners, it is important to understand the distinction between these techniques and to understand what research questions they can, and cannot, address. This review provides an overview of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, including a discussion of the method and uses. A sample dataset and coding to conduct a simple meta-analysis in the statistical program R also are provided. Scoping reviews are a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. The approach involves an extensive literature search, following by a structured mapping, or charting, of the literature. The results of scoping reviews can help to inform future research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and also can be used to identify areas where there may be a sufficient depth of literature to warrant a systematic review. Systematic reviews are intended to address a specific question by identifying and summarizing all of the available research that has addressed the review question. Questions types that can be addressed by a systematic review include prevalence/incidence questions, and questions related to etiology, intervention efficacy, and diagnostic test accuracy. The systematic review process follows structured steps with multiple reviewers working in parallel to reduce the potential for bias. An extensive literature search is undertaken and, for each relevant study identified by the search, a formal extraction of data, including the effect size, and assessment of the risk of bias is performed. The results from multiple studies can be combined using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a summary effect size, and allows heterogeneity of effect among studies to be quantified and explored. These evidence synthesis approaches can provide scientific input to evidence-based clinical decision-making for veterinarians and regulatory bodies, and also can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature to enhance the efficiency of future research in a topic area.

Project description:Background: Musculoskeletal conditions are major contributors to years lived with disability. Cold exposure can be a risk factor, but any conclusion is obscure. Aim: The aim of the present scoping review was to identify the existing evidence of an association between cold exposure and musculoskeletal conditions. The aim also included to consider pain in different regions and their assessment, as well as different measures of cold exposure, effect sizes, and to assess the feasibility of future systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligibility criteria: The studies must have: an epidemiological design, defined cold exposure to come prior to the health outcome, defined exposure and outcome(s), existence of effect estimate(s) or data that made it possible to calculate such an estimate. Further, studies were required to be in English language and published in peer-reviewed journals. Studies that had a specific goal of studying cold exposure as an aggravator of already existing health problems were excluded. Sources: We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R), and Embase Classic + Embase for original studies. Charting method: The included studies were reviewed for study population, measurement of exposure and outcome, and effect size. Each publication was assessed for risk of bias. Results: The included studies were heterogeneous in populations, measures of cold exposure and musculoskeletal conditions. Most studies used self-reported data. They were mostly cross-sectional studies, only two were prospective and one was a case-control study. Associations were found for different cold exposures and regional musculoskeletal conditions, but the heterogeneity and lack of studies impeded valid synthesis of risk magnitude, or meta-analyses. Conclusion: The studies identified in this review indicate that cold exposure increases the risk of musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is a need for studies that better assess temporality between exposure and outcome. Future studies should also include better exposure assessment, including both objective measurements and measures of subjective experience of cold exposure. The heterogeneity in measurement of exposure and outcome impeded any meta-analysis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. DESIGN:Scoping review. SETTING AND POPULATION:Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. RESULTS:Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116?and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. CONCLUSIONS:While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017059250.