Dataset Information

Acupuncture and manual therapy for rotator cuff tears: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The tears of rotator cuff is caused by the tears or aseptic inflammation of tendon tissue such as subscapular muscle, supraspinatus muscle, infraspinatus muscle, teres minor muscle, and so on, which make up the rotator cuff. Managements of rotator cuff disease often include acupuncture and manual therapy, usually delivered together. The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of such interventions in patients with pain and dysfunction caused by rotator cuff tears.

Methods

We will search the EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, the Chongqing VIP, the US National Institute of Health, the NIH clinical registry Clinical Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and the Chinese clinical registry, from their inception to April 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials that include patients with rotator cuff tears receiving acupuncture and manual therapy versus a control group will be included. The selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted by 2 independent researchers. A third review author will resolve disagreements. The dichotomous data will be presented as risk ratios with 95% CIs and the continuous data will be presented as weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. Evidence quality will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Discussion

This systematic review will provide updated evidence of various types of acupuncture and manual therapy specifically focuses on its effectiveness and safety for patients' pain and dysfunction caused by rotator cuff tears.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not necessary as this review will not require data from individual patients. The results of this will be published through peer-reviewed journal articles or conference presentations.

Registration

Open Science Framework Preregistration. Registration number 10.17605/OSF.IO/M3NKV.

SUBMITTER: Tang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7249925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRotator cuff disease (RCD) consists of subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tendinitis, partial or full rotator cuff tear, calcific tendinitis, and subacromial bursitis. Acupuncture has been suggested as a meaningful nonsurgical intervention for managing shoulder pain and dysfunction. However, previous reviews have not completely addressed the role of acupuncture in the management of RCDs. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for managing symptoms in patients with RCD.MethodsWe will search the following databases from their inception to November 30, 2019: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), 3 Chinese databases (China Academic Journal Full-text Database (CAJ), China Doctoral Dissertations Full-text database and China Masters' Thesis Full-text Database), 6 Korean databases (Korean studies Information Service System (KISS), National Digital Science Library (NDSL), Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), Korean Medical Database (KMBASE), Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS)), and 3 trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). We will include randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for RCD. There will be no restrictions related to setting or location. The primary outcome is pain intensity and shoulder dysfunction measured on validated scales within 12 weeks. Quality assessment will be performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Dichotomous outcomes will be presented as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes will be presented as weighted or standardized mean differences (SMD). Each outcome will be calculated with 95% confidence intervals.DiscussionThe updated evidence that would be provided by this review will offer useful information for patients and practitioners, and also have implications for future studies and the development of clinical practice guidelines of RCD.Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) Preregistration. 2019, December 5. osf.io/n2e6t.

Project description:BackgroundScientific evidence is not clear regarding the routine use of acromioplasty in the treatment of rotator cuff repair. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without concomitant acromioplasty.MethodsMedline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies focused on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty from January 2000 to February 2018. Postoperative functional outcomes, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and reoperation rate were extracted for systemic analysis.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cohort study (CS), including 651 patients, fulfilled our selection criteria. The results showed a significant difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, but not in the Constant score, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) score, or Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, in the treatment of rotator cuff tear with or without concomitant acromioplasty at the final follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, the results showed no significant differences between the two treatments in reoperation rate at the final follow-up or VAS score at 6 months postoperatively and final follow-up, but there was a significant difference in VAS score at 12 months postoperatively in favor of acromioplasty treatment. The evidence quality for each outcome evaluated by the GRADE system was low.ConclusionsIn summary, our present study demonstrated that acromioplasty treatment is significantly superior to nonacromioplasty in shoulder pain relief at 12 months postoperatively and in ASES score improvement at the final follow-up in conjunction with rotator cuff repair. However, these significant differences were not clinically relevant. Thus, there were no differences in shoulder function or pain scores for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty. Further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are needed to clarify this issue.

Project description:Importance:Rotator cuff disorders remain the most common cause of shoulder pain and are among the most common reasons for patients to seek care in primary and specialty settings. Although operative and nonoperative treatments are offered to patients with atraumatic rotator cuff tears, there is a lack of evidence to support operative vs nonoperative treatment. This paucity of evidence has been highlighted by several professional agencies and experts. Objective:To perform a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, the Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff trial, comparing pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing operative vs nonoperative treatment for atraumatic rotator cuff tears, and assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects by age and tear size. Design, Setting, and Participants:Trial protocol of the Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff trial. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial of an estimated 700 patients is adequately powered to accomplish its aims with 488 patients. Primary analysis will be conducted on an intent-to-treat population in the context of a mixed model. The multicenter trial started recruitment in 2018 with a 1-year follow-up duration. Patients aged 50 years or older to younger than 85 years with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed atraumatic rotator cuff tears that are suitable for either operative or nonoperative treatment will be enrolled. Block randomization will be performed and stratified by site, age, and tear size. Intervention:Nonoperative treatment consists of an approximately 3-month standardized physical therapy program, whereas operative treatment consists of rotator cuff surgery followed by approximately 4 months of postoperative rehabilitation. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome is patient-reported Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, and the secondary outcome is American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Form score measured at 1 year of follow-up. Discussion:The Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff trial is ongoing, and 12 sites with more than 40 physicians are currently recruiting patients. Although there is variation by site, as of May 2, 2019, 13% of all patients screened (787 of 6293) were eligible for the trial, and 9% of eligible patients (74 of 787) were recruited. Results of this study may help patients, clinicians, and policy makers assess the comparative effectiveness of operative vs nonoperative treatment for atraumatic rotator cuff tears. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03295994.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no consensus on the treatment of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome scores, (2) define failure and reoperation rates, and (3) quantify the magnitude of patient response across treatment strategies.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases were searched for studies including physical therapy and operative treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. The criteria of the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies were used to assess study quality. Primary outcome measures were patient-reported outcome scores as well as failure, complication, and reoperation rates. To quantify patient response to treatment, we compared changes in the Constant-Murley score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score with previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.ResultsNo level I or II studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. Physical therapy was associated with a 30% failure rate among the included patients, and another 30% went on to undergo surgery. Partial repair was associated with a 45% retear rate and 10% reoperation rate. Only graft interposition was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for both the Constant-Murley score and ASES score. Latissimus tendon transfer techniques using humeral bone tunnel fixation were associated with a 77% failure rate. Superior capsular reconstruction with fascia lata autograft was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for the ASES score. Reverse arthroplasty was associated with a 10% prosthesis failure rate and 8% reoperation rate.ConclusionThere is a lack of high-quality comparative studies to guide treatment recommendations. Compared with surgery, physical therapy is associated with less improvement in perceived functional outcomes and a higher clinical failure rate.

Project description:ContextTherapeutic exercise is considered the mainstay in the management of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP). Manual therapy (MT) interventions have also shown to be effective in RCRSP. However, the benefits of adding MT along with exercise interventions for the management of RCRSP remain unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the additional benefits of MT with exercise compared with exercise in isolation for the management of RCRSP.Data sourcesA search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, and EBSCO from the inception date of each database through April 20, 2022, was conducted for randomized trials comparing the additional effects of MT in exercise interventions compared with exercise alone for pain management and function in patients with RCRSP. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects inverse variance model according to the outcome of interest and comparison group. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro and quality of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.Study designMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Level of evidenceLevel 2.ResultsTwelve articles were found eligible and 8 of them demonstrated high methodological quality. Eleven articles were included for quantitative analysis. Pain with movement was not significantly different between MT and exercise versus exercise alone (SMD [95% CI] = -0.15 [-0.41 to 0.12]; I2 = 0%), whereas pain at rest was significantly improved in the groups that used exercise only with a moderate effect size (SMD [95% CI] = 0.47 [0.04 to 0.89]; I2 = 75%). Furthermore, shoulder function was not significantly different between MT and exercise versus exercise alone in the short term (SMD [95% CI] = 0.23 [-0.22 to 0.69]; I2 = 88%) or the long term (SMD [95% CI] = -0.02 [-0.21 to 0.16]; I2 = 2%).ConclusionAdding MT to exercise interventions for the management of RCRSP is not more effective than exercise alone for pain and function in adult patients.