Dataset Information

Nonsurgical Treatment Options for Muscle Contractures in Individuals With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate whether nonsurgical treatment can reduce muscle contractures in individuals with neurologic disorders. The primary outcome measure was muscle contractures measured as joint mobility or passive stiffness.

Data sources

Embase, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database in June-July 2019 and again in July 2020.

Study selection

The search resulted in 8020 records, which were screened by 2 authors based on our patient, intervention, comparison, outcome criteria. We included controlled trials of nonsurgical interventions administered to treat muscle contractures in individuals with neurologic disorders.

Data extraction

Authors, participant characteristics, intervention details, and joint mobility/passive stiffness before and after intervention were extracted. We assessed trials for risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. We conducted meta-analyses investigating the short-term effect on joint mobility using a random-effects model with the pooled effect from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the primary outcome. The minimal clinically important effect was set at 5°.

Data synthesis

A total of 70 trials (57 RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Stretch had a pooled effect of 3° (95% CI, 1-4°; prediction interval (PI)=-2 to 7°; I ²=66%; P<.001), and robot-assisted rehabilitation had an effect of 1 (95% CI, 0-2; PI=-8 to 9; I ²=73%; P=.03). We found no effect of shockwave therapy (P=.56), physical activity (P=.27), electrical stimulation (P=.11), or botulinum toxin (P=.13). Although trials were generally of moderate to high quality according to the Downs and Black checklist, only 18 of the 70 trials used objective measures of muscle contractures. In 23 trials, nonobjective measures were used without use of assessor-blinding.

Conclusions

We did not find convincing evidence supporting the use of any nonsurgical treatment option. We recommend that controlled trials using objective measures of muscle contractures and a sufficiently large number of participants be performed.

SUBMITTER: Svane C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7984980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Subgingival applications of chlorhexidine (CHX) gel are commonly used as an adjunct in nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) for chronic periodontitis (CP). However, there is lack of systematic review and meta-analysis justifying the effects of adjunctive CHX gel on clinical outcomes. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive subgingival administration of CHX gel in NSPT compared to NSPT alone for CP. METHODS:An electronic search of four databases and a manual search of four journals were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized controlled trials reporting on the clinical outcomes of subgingival use of CHX gel adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP), as compared to SRP alone or with placebo, for at least 3?months were included. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain at 3 and 6?months, when data on at least three studies were obtained. RESULTS:Seventeen studies were included for qualitative analysis and seven studies for quantitative analysis (four studies for the application of CHX gel adjunct to SRP at selected sites with at least pocket depth ??4?mm and three studies for comparison of full-mouth disinfection (FMD) with subgingival use of CHX gel and full-mouth scaling and root planing (FMSRP). For subgroups, the clinical outcomes between adjunctive use of Xanthan-based CHX gel (XAN-CHX gel) and CHX gel were analyzed. Results indicated a significant improvement of PPD reduction following local adjunctive administration of XAN-CHX gel for SRP at selected sites (MD: 0.15?mm). However, no difference was found in CAL gain. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in PPD and CAL at both 3 and 6?months post-treatment between FMD and FMSRP. CONCLUSION:Adjunctive subgingival administration of XAN-CHX gel at individual selected sites in NSPT appears to provide slight benefits in PPD reduction compared to NSPT alone for CP. Due to the lack of high-quality studies, further studies with larger sample sizes and strict standards are needed to confirm the conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical or nonsurgical treatment for scaphoid waist fracture with slight or no displacement is still controversial. This study compared the efficacy of the 2 methods through meta-analysis to provide a reference for the choice of clinical treatment options.MethodsTwo individuals independently searched for relevant RCTs and cohort studies from PubMed (1946-February 2018), Embase (1946-February 2018), and Cochrane library (1997-February 2018). After quality assessment and data extraction, Stata 14 software was used for combining the effect size, testing heterogeneity, and studying bias. GRADEpro was used to rate the level of evidence.ResultsTen RCTs and 4 cohort studies with 765 patients were included. No statistical difference in satisfaction, pain, and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was found after surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Compared with nonsurgical treatment, surgical treatment shortened the time to union (SMD?=?-5.01, 95% CI: -7.47 to -2.58, P?=?.000), decreased the convalescence (SMD?=?-2.09, 95% CI: -3.08 to -1.11, P?=?.000), and reduced the incidence of nonunion (RR?=?0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.90), P?=?.023). Subgroup analyses showed that the percutaneous fixation treatment can shorten the time to union [SMD?=?-1.82, 95%CI (-2.22 to -1.42), P?=?=?.000] and the convalescence (SMD?=?-4.26, 95%CI: -6.16 to -2.35, P?=?=?.054), and open reduction fixation treatment can reduce the incidence of nonunion (RR?=?0.20, 95%CI: 0.06-0.69, P?=?=?.01).ConclusionFor scaphoid waist fractures with slight or no displacement, there was no statistical difference in patient satisfaction, pain, and The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores between surgical treatment and nonsurgical treatment. Closed surgical treatment can shorten the time to union and convalescence, and open reduction can reduce the incidence of nonunion. On the basis of this conclusion, chief physicians can consider which treatment to use according to the patient's clinical situation and their subjective intention.

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disease. Either surgical or conservative intervention for CTS patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical intervention.MethodsThe eligible studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.ResultsThirteen studies including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The difference of clinical efficacy was statistically significant between surgical and nonsurgical intervention, and nonsurgical treatment was more effective (OR = 2.35, 95%CI = 1.18-4.67, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, different results were discovered by subgroup analysis. The pooled results of function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care at different follow-up times showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the 2 interventions. The difference of complications and side-effects was statistically significant and conservative treatment achieved better result than surgery (OR = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.28-3.22, P = 0.003). Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results.ConclusionBoth surgical and conservative interventions had benefits in CTS. Nonsurgical treatment was more effective and safety than surgical treatment, but there were no significant differences in function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care. Nonsurgical treatment is recommended as the optical choice for CTS. If conservative treatment fails, surgical release can be taken.