Dataset Information

Craniosacral therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. METHODS:PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS:Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD?=?-0.32, 95%CI?=?[-?0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD?=?-0.58, 95%CI?=?[-?0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD?=?-0.63, 95%CI?=?[-?0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD?=?-0.54, 95%CI?=?[-?0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD?=?-0.53, 95%CI?=?[-?0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD?=?-0.58, 95%CI?=?[-?0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD?=?-0.59, 95%CI?=?[-?0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD?=?-0.53, 95%CI?=?[-?0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups. DISCUSSION:In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION AT PROSPERO:CRD42018111975.

SUBMITTER: Haller H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6937867 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Craniosacral therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Haller Heidemarie H Lauche Romy R Sundberg Tobias T Dobos Gustav G Cramer Holger H

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20191231 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for s ...[more]

PMID: 31892357

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic neck pain (CNP) is a common public health problem that affects daily living activities and quality of life. There is biomechanical interdependence between the neck and scapula. Studies have shown that shoulder blade function might be related to chronic neck pain. We therefore evaluated the effects of scapular targeted therapy on neck pain and function in patients with CNP.MethodsDatabases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Ovid, Web of Science, and Scopus, were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials published in English investigating treatment of the scapula for CNP before July 16, 2023.ResultsA total of 313 participants were included from 8 RCTs. Compared with those in the control group, the intervention in the scapular treatment group exhibited greater improvement in pain intensity (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.55; 95% CI = 0.97 to 4.13; P = 0.002), with moderate evidence. Subgroup analysis for pain intensity revealed a significant difference between the sexes, with only the female population (SMD = 6.23, 95% CI = 4.80 to 7.65) showing better outcomes than those with both sexes (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.56) (p < 0.00001). However, moderate evidence demonstrated no improvement in neck disability after scapular treatment (SMD of 0.24[-0.14, 0.62] of Neck Disability Index or Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire). No effect of scapular treatment was shown on the pressure pain threshold (PPT). The cervical range of motion (CROM) and electromyographic activity of neck muscles could not be conclusively evaluated due to limited support in the articles, and further study was needed. However, the patient's head forward posture appeared to be corrected after scapular treatment.ConclusionScapular therapy was beneficial for relieving pain intensity in patients with CNP, especially in women. Head forward posture might also be corrected with scapular therapy. However, scapular therapy may have no effect on the PPT or neck disability. However, whether scapular therapy could improve CROM and cervical muscle activation in patients with CNPs had not been determined and needed further study.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Project description:Background and objectiveChronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is very common, with a lifetime prevalence between 51% and 80%. In majority, it is nonspecific in nature and multifactorial in etiology. Pregabalin (PG) and Gabapentin (GB) are gabapentinoids that have demonstrated benefit in neuropathic pain conditions. Despite no clear rationale, they are increasingly used for nonspecific CLBP. They necessitate prolonged use and are associated with adverse effects and increased cost. Recent guidelines from the National Health Service (NHS), England, expressed concerns on their off-label use, in addition to the risk of misuse. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of gabapentinoids in adult CLBP patients.MethodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched from their inception until December 20th, 2016. We included randomized control trials reporting the use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of CLBP of >3 months duration, in adult patients. Study selection and data extraction was performed independently by paired reviewers. Outcomes were guided by Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, with pain relief and safety as the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 in percentage representing the percentage variability in effect estimates that could be explained by heterogeneity. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsOut of 1,385 citations, eight studies were included. Based on the interventions and comparators, studies were analyzed in 3 different groups. GB compared with placebo (3 studies, n = 185) showed minimal improvement of pain (MD = 0.22 units, 95% CI [-0.5 to 0.07] I2 = 0%; GRADE: very low). Three studies compared PG with other types of analgesic medication (n = 332) and showed greater improvement in the other analgesic group (MD = 0.42 units, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.64] I2 = 0; GRADE: very low). Studies using PG as an adjuvant (n = 423) were not pooled due to heterogeneity, but the largest of them showed no benefit of adding PG to tapentadol. There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported. Compared with placebo, the following adverse events were more commonly reported with GB: dizziness-(RR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.17 to 3.37], I2 = 49); fatigue (RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.12 to 3.05], I2 = 0); difficulties with mentation (RR = 3.34, 95% CI [1.54 to 7.25], I2 = 0); and visual disturbances (RR = 5.72, 95% CI [1.94 to 16.91], I2 = 0). The number needed to harm with 95% CI for dizziness, fatigue, difficulties with mentation, and visual disturbances were 7 (4 to 30), 8 (4 to 44), 6 (4 to 15), and 6 (4 to 13) respectively. The GRADE evidence quality was noted to be very low for dizziness and fatigue, low for difficulties with mentation, and moderate for visual disturbances. Functional and emotional improvements were reported by few studies and showed no significant improvements.Conclusions and relevanceExisting evidence on the use of gabapentinoids in CLBP is limited and demonstrates significant risk of adverse effects without any demonstrated benefit. Given the lack of efficacy, risks, and costs associated, the use of gabapentinoids for CLBP merits caution. There is need for large high-quality trials to more definitively inform this issue.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016034040.

Dataset Information

Craniosacral therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Craniosacral therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets