Musculoskeletal Pain Due to Wheelchair Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Wheelchair users are at a high risk of experiencing non-neuropathic pain of musculoskeletal origin as a result of being wheelchair-bound. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in wheelchair users that is attributable to wheelchair use, and to describe the different pain syndromes and discuss risk factors and management options.Methods
After a systematic MEDLINE search, we identified 40 papers eligible for inclusion.Results
The pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain at any location was 50% (95% CI 33-67%). The most common pain syndrome was shoulder pain (pooled prevalence 44%, 95% CI 36-52%). Wheelchair users were 5.8 times as likely to suffer from shoulder pain as controls (95% CI 2.7-12.2, p < 0.0001). Other pain syndromes included neck, elbow, wrist, hand and low back pain. Older age and increased duration of wheelchair use were the most significant determinants of pain in wheelchair users.Conclusions
Musculoskeletal pain as a result of wheelchair use is very common amongst wheelchair users. Management of pain should follow national and international guidelines. Optimal adjustment of seating position may prevent pain, and is important to be taken into consideration.
SUBMITTER: Liampas A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586284 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Thread embedding acupuncture (TEA) is a special type of acupuncture that inserts certain medical threads (eg, catgut or polydioxanone) into subcutaneous tissue or muscles at specific points. Although TEA has been widely used for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in Korea, China and Taiwan, evidence regarding its efficacy is lacking. The aim of this protocol is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TEA in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The following 16 databases will be searched from their inception to 14 May 2017: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, three Chinese database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database and the Wanfang database) and eight Korean databases (Korean Medical Database, Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors, Korean Studies Information Service System, Korean National Assembly Digital Library, National Digital Science Library, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, 'Database Periodical Information Academic and Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal'). The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will also be searched to retrieve the recently completed studies.All randomised controlled studies in which TEA was used on specific points for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain will be included and no restrictions on language will be applied. The risk of bias of each study will be evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous data and risk ratio for dichotomous data will be calculated with 95% CIs using a random effects model or a fixed effects model. Additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted according to a predefined protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are predicted. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. These findings will summarise the current evidence of TEA for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain and may provide guidance for clinicians and patients to select TEA for musculoskeletal pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015019046.
| S-EPMC5829818 | biostudies-other
Project description:Unlabelled: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review.MethodsStudies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses.ResultsTwelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo.ConclusionsTopical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC516039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) is one of the most severe complaints in women undergoing menopause. The prevalence of MSP varied when taking the menopausal state and age factor into consideration. This study investigated the prevalence of MSP in perimenopausal women and its association with menopausal state. The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched from inception to July 2020, and 16 studies were retrieved for the current meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was the MSP Odds Ratio (OR). The estimated overall prevalence of MSP among perimenopausal women was 71% (4144 out of 5836, 95% confidence interval (CI): 64%-78%). Perimenopausal women demonstrated a higher risk for MSP than premenopausal ones (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.35-1.96, P = 0.008, I 2 = 59.7%), but similar to that in postmenopausal ones (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.95-1.20, P = 0.316, I 2 = 13.4%). The postmenopausal women were at a higher risk of moderate/severe MSP than the premenopausal ones (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.21-1.75, P = 0.302, I 2 = 16.5%) or the perimenopausal ones (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.09-1.79, P = 0.106, I 2 = 55.4%). In conclusion, the perimenopause is a state during which women are particularly predisposed to develop MSP. As to moderate to severe degrees of MSP, the odds increase linearly with age, from premenopause to peri- and then to postmenopause.
| S-EPMC7710408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity and musculoskeletal pain are strongly related, but there is emerging evidence that body fat, not body weight, may be a better indicator of risk. There is, therefore, a need to determine if body fat is associated with musculoskeletal pain as it may improve management strategies. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between body fat and musculoskeletal pain.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched from inception to 8th January 2018. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating the association between measures of body fat and musculoskeletal pain were included. All included articles were assessed for methodological rigour using the Epidemiology Appraisal Instrument. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and effect estimates were pooled for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 10,221 citations were identified through the database searching, which after abstract and full-text review, yielded 28 unique articles. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analyses, which found significant cross-sectional associations between total body fat mass and widespread pain (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.61, p < 0.001). Individuals with low-back pain and knee pain had a higher body fat percentage than asymptomatic controls (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.52, p < 0.001 and SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.32, p = 0.009, respectively). Fat mass index was significantly, albeit weakly, associated with foot pain (SMD 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.06, p < 0.001). Longitudinal studies (n = 8) were unsuitable for meta-analysis, but were largely indicative of elevated body fat increasing the risk of incident and worsening joint pain. There was conflicting evidence for an association between body fat percentage and incident low-back pain (3 studies, follow-up 4-20 years). Increasing knee pain (1 study) and incident foot pain (2 studies) were positively associated with body fat percentage and fat mass index. The percentage of items in the EAI graded as 'yes' for each study ranged from 23 to 85%, indicating variable methodological quality of the included studies.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis identified positive cross-sectional associations between increased body fat and widespread and single-site joint pain in the low-back, knee and foot. Longitudinal studies suggest elevated body fat may infer increased risk of incident and worsening joint pain, although further high-quality studies are required.
| S-EPMC6052598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a complex condition that is mainly treated with analgesic drugs. However, antidepressant intervention is also an important factor in the treatment of CMP. Duloxetine is an effective treatment option for patients with CMP as its antidepressant effect. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in treating CMP.Databases and data treatmentWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library from inception to May, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of duloxetine versus placebo in patients with CMP were included. We identified 13 articles and studied a population of 4201 participants in 4 countries.ResultsThis meta-analysis showed that the duloxetine has statistically significant compared with the placebo control, benefits on 24-hour average pain, living quality, physical function, and global impressions and there was no difference in the incidence of serious adverse event. In general, duloxetine can improve mood and pain level at the same time.ConclusionsThis review shows a significant contribution of duloxetine to CMP symptom relief. This meta-analysis improved that duloxetine can significantly reduce the pain level of patients, improve depressive symptoms and global impression, and has no obvious serious adverse reactions. However, additional studies are required to confirm the relationship between psychological diseases and chronic pain and explore their internal links.
| S-EPMC10193733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA growing body of evidence has demonstrated the importance of implementing movement-evoked pain in conventional pain assessments, with a significant role for psychological factors being suggested. Whether or not to include these factors in the assessment of movement-evoked pain has not yet been determined.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to explore the association between psychological factors and movement-evoked pain scores in people with musculoskeletal pain.MethodsFor this systematic review with meta-analysis, four electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, WOS, and Scopus) were searched. Cross-sectional studies, longitudinal cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials investigating the association between movement-evoked pain and psychological factors in adults with musculoskeletal pain were considered. Meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes with homogeneous data from at least 2 studies. Fischer-Z transformations were used as the measure of effect. Quality of evidence was assessed using the National Institutes of Health's Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.ResultsMeta-analyses and grading the quality of evidence revealed moderate evidence for a relation between movement-evoked pain and depressive symptoms (Fisher-z=0.27; 95%CI: 0.17, 0.36; 5 studies (n=440)), pain-related fear (Fisher-z=0.35; 95%CI: 0.26, 0.44; 6 studies (n=492)), and pain catastrophizing (Fisher-z=0.47; 95%CI: 0.36, 0.58; 4 studies (n=312)) in people with musculoskeletal pain.ConclusionsMovement-evoked pain is weakly to moderately associated to depressive symptoms, pain-related fear, and pain catastrophizing in people with musculoskeletal pain.
| S-EPMC9597124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health solutions can provide populations with musculoskeletal pain with high-reach, low-cost, easily accessible, and scalable patient education and self-management interventions that meet the time and resource restrictions.ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions (ie, low back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, elbow pain, ankle pain, and whiplash).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from 1974 to August 2021) and selected randomized controlled trials of digital health interventions in the target population of patients with musculoskeletal pain with a minimum follow-up of 1 month. A total of 2 researchers independently screened and extracted the data.ResultsA total of 56 eligible studies were included covering 9359 participants, with a mean follow-up of 25 (SD 15.48) weeks. In moderate-quality evidence, digital health interventions had a small effect on pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.32), disability (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.25), quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.36), emotional functioning (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.12-0.35), and self-management (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.24).ConclusionsModerate-quality evidence supports the conclusion that digital health interventions are effective in reducing pain and improving functioning and self-management of musculoskeletal pain conditions. Low-quality evidence indicates that digital health interventions can improve the quality of life and global treatment. Little research has been conducted on the influence of digital health on expenses, knowledge, overall improvement, range of motion, muscle strength, and implementation fidelity.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022307504; https://tinyurl.com/2cd25hus.
| S-EPMC9490534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour (SB; time spent sitting) is associated with musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions; however, no prior systematic review has examined these associations according to SB domains. We synthesised evidence on occupational and non-occupational SB and MSP conditions.MethodsGuided by a PRISMA protocol, eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and AMED) and three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldChat, and Trove) were searched (January 1, 2000, to March 17, 2021) for original quantitative studies of adults ≥ 18 years. Clinical-condition studies were excluded. Studies' risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. For meta-analyses, random effect inverse-variance pooled effect size was estimated; otherwise, best-evidence synthesis was used for narrative review.ResultsOf 178 potentially-eligible studies, 79 were included [24 general population; 55 occupational (incuding15 experimental/intervention)]; 56 studies were of high quality, with scores > 0.75. Data for 26 were meta-synthesised. For cross-sectional studies of non-occupational SB, meta-analysis showed full-day SB to be associated with low back pain [LBP - OR = 1.19(1.03 - 1.38)]. Narrative synthesis found full-day SB associations with knee pain, arthritis, and general MSP, but the evidence was insufficient on associations with neck/shoulder pain, hip pain, and upper extremities pain. Evidence of prospective associations of full-day SB with MSP conditions was insufficient. Also, there was insufficient evidence on both cross-sectional and prospective associations between leisure-time SB and MSP conditions. For occupational SB, cross-sectional studies meta-analysed indicated associations of self-reported workplace sitting with LBP [OR = 1.47(1.12 - 1.92)] and neck/shoulder pain [OR = 1.73(1.46 - 2.03)], but not with extremities pain [OR = 1.17(0.65 - 2.11)]. Best-evidence synthesis identified inconsistent findings on cross-sectional association and a probable negative prospective association of device-measured workplace sitting with LBP-intensity in tradespeople. There was cross-sectional evidence on the association of computer time with neck/shoulder pain, but insufficient evidence for LBP and general MSP. Experimental/intervention evidence indicated reduced LBP, neck/shoulder pain, and general MSP with reducing workplace sitting.ConclusionsWe found cross-sectional associations of occupational and non-occupational SB with MSP conditions, with occupational SB associations being occupation dependent, however, reverse causality bias cannot be ruled out. While prospective evidence was inconclusive, reducing workplace sitting was associated with reduced MSP conditions. Future studies should emphasise prospective analyses and examining potential interactions with chronic diseases.Protocol registrationPROSPERO ID # CRD42020166412 (Amended to limit the scope).
| S-EPMC8666269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) in different immersive conditions has been increasingly used as a nonpharmacological method for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of VR-assisted active training versus conventional exercise or physiotherapy in chronic musculoskeletal pain and to analyze the effects of immersive versus nonimmersive VR on pain outcomes.MethodsThis systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to June 9, 2024. RCTs comparing adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain receiving VR-assisted training were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes included functional disability and kinesiophobia. Available data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were graded using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool version 2.ResultsIn total, 28 RCTs including 1114 participants with some concerns for a high risk of bias were identified, and 25 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In low back pain, short-term outcomes measured post intervention showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.79, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.87; P<.001), improving disability (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16; P=.002), and kinesiophobia (SMD -2.94, 95% CI -5.20 to -0.68; P=.01). Intermediate-term outcomes measured at 6 months also showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (SMD -8.15, 95% CI -15.29 to -1.01; P=.03), and kinesiophobia (SMD -4.28, 95% CI -8.12 to -0.44; P=.03) compared to conventional active training. For neck pain, immersive VR reduced pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.08; P=.02) but not disability and kinesiophobia in the short term. No statistical significances were detected for knee pain or other pain regions at all time points. In addition, 2 (8%) studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsBoth nonimmersive and immersive VR-assisted active training is effective in reducing back and neck pain symptoms. Our study findings suggest that VR is effective in alleviating chronic musculoskeletal pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022302912; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=302912.
| S-EPMC11369537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ?4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094412.
| S-EPMC6500323 | biostudies-literature