Dataset Information

Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of manual therapy interventions on the autonomic nervous system have been largely assessed, but with heterogeneous findings regarding the direction of these effects. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to describe if there is a specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapy interventions, its relation with the type of technique used and the body region where the intervention was applied.

Methods

We conducted an overview according to a publicly registered protocol. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EPISTEMONIKOS and SCOPUS, from their inception to march 2021. We included systematic reviews for which the primary aim of the intervention was to assess the autonomic effect elicited by a manual therapy intervention in either healthy or symptomatic individuals. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria, assessed risk of bias from the included reviews and extracted data. An established model of generalisation guided the data analysis and interpretation.

Results

We included 12 reviews (5 rated as low risk of bias according the ROBIS tool). The findings showed that manual therapies may have an effect on both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. However, the results from included reviews were inconsistent due to differences in their methodological rigour and how the effects were measured. The reviews with a lower risk of bias could not discriminate the effects depending on the body region to which the technique was applied.

Conclusion

The magnitude of the specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapies and its clinical relevance is uncertain. We point out some specific recommendations in order to improve the quality and relevance of future research in this field.

SUBMITTER: Roura S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8638932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAs clinical practice guidelines vary widely in their search strategies and recommendations of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for depression, this overview aimed at systematically summarising the level 1 evidence on CAM for patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression.MethodsPubMed, PsycInfo and Central were searched for meta-analyses of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) until 30 June 2018. Outcomes included depression severity, response, remission, relapse and adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) considering the methodological quality of the RCTs and meta-analyses, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision of the evidence and the potential risk of publication bias.ResultsThe literature search revealed 26 meta-analyses conducted between 2002 and 2018 on 1-49 RCTs in major, minor and seasonal depression. In patients with mild to moderate major depression, moderate quality evidence suggested the efficacy of St. John's wort towards placebo and its comparative effectiveness towards standard antidepressants for the treatment for depression severity and response rates, while St. John's wort caused significant less adverse events. In patients with recurrent major depression, moderate quality evidence showed that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was superior to standard antidepressant drug treatment for the prevention of depression relapse. Other CAM evidence was considered as having low or very low quality.ConclusionsThe effects of all but two CAM treatments found in studies on clinical depressed patients based on low to very low quality of evidence. The evidence has to be downgraded mostly due to avoidable methodological flaws of both the original RCTs and meta-analyses not following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Further research is needed.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral targeted therapies for cancer have been associated with cardiovascular toxicity. The evidence for this association has not been synthesized systematically nor has the quality of evidence been considered. We synthesized systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity of individual targeted agents.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents published to May 2020. We selected reviews according to prespecified eligibility criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017080014). We classified evidence of cardiovascular toxicity as sufficient, probable, possible, or indeterminate for specific cardiovascular outcomes based on statistical significance, study quality, and size.ResultsFrom 113 systematic reviews, we found at least probable systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity for 18 agents, including high- and all-grade hypertension for bevacizumab, ramucirumab, axitinib, cediranib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib, aflibercept, abiraterone, and enzalutamide, and all-grade hypertension for nintedanib; high- and all-grade arterial thromboembolism (includes cardiac and/or cerebral events) for bevacizumab and abiraterone, high-grade arterial thromboembolism for trastuzumab, and all-grade arterial thromboembolism for sorafenib and tamoxifen; high- and all-grade venous thromboembolism (VTE) for lenalidomide and thalidomide, high-grade VTE for cetuximab and panitumumab, and all-grade VTE for bevacizumab; high- and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline or congestive heart failure for bevacizumab and trastuzumab, and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline/congestive heart failure for pazopanib and sunitinib; and all-grade corrected QT interval prolongation for vandetanib.ConclusionsOur review provides an accessible summary of the cardiovascular toxicity of targeted therapy to assist clinicians and patients when managing cardiovascular health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a route map regarding systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture therapies that will meet two goals: (1) to identify areas in which more or better evidence is required and (2) to identify acupuncture applications that, although proven effective, remain underused in practice, and thus warrant more effective knowledge dissemination.Eligibility criteriaWe included SRs that conducted meta-analyses (MAs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for this overview.Information sourcesWe searched for SRs without language restrictions from January 2015 to November 2020 in four Chinese electronic databases and Epistemonikos database. And we also searched for newly published RCTs that were eligible for selected best SRs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and four Chinese electronic databases from its lasted search dates to November 2020.Synthesis of resultsWe reanalysed the selected MAs if new primary studies were added. We used random-effect model to calculate the overall effect.ResultsOur search identified 120 SRs published in the last 5 years addressing acupuncture therapies across 12 therapeutic areas and 77 diseases and conditions. The SRs included 205 outcomes and involved 138 995 participants from 1402 RCTs. We constructed 77 evidence matrices, including 120 SRs and their included RCTs in the Epistemonikos database. Seventy-seven SRs represented the effect estimate of acupuncture therapies. Finally, we system summarised the areas of possible underutilisation of acupuncture therapies (high or moderate certainty evidence of large or moderate effects), and the areas of warranting additional investigation of acupuncture therapies (low or very low certainty evidence of moderate or large effects).ConclusionThe evidence maps and overview of SRs on acupuncture therapies identified both therapies with substantial benefits that may require more assertive evidence dissemination and promising acupuncture therapies that require further investigation.

Project description:Background Manual therapy has been used as an alternative approach to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA) for many years. Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) were published to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. Nevertheless, the conclusions of SRs/MAs are inconsistent, and the uneven quality needs to be critically appraised. Objectives To conduct a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy for KOA and the quality of relevant SRs/MAs, thus providing critical evidence and valuable direction for future researchers to promote the generation of advanced evidence. Methods The pre-defined search strategies were applied to eight electronic databases from inception to September 2022. Suitable SRs/MAs were included in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality were assessed by two independent reviewers who used respectively the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Version (PRISMA 2020), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) based on the method of narrative synthesis. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a re-meta-analysis of the total effective rate. Results A total of eleven relevant SRs/MAs were included: nine SRs/MAs were rated critically low quality, and two were rated low quality by AMSTAR-2. According to ROBIS, all SRs/MAs were rated low risk in Phase 1 (assessing relevance) and Domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) of Phase 2. Three SRs/MAs (27.27%) were rated low risk in Domain 2 (identification and selection of studies). Ten SRs/MAs (90.91%) were rated low risk in Domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal). Five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Domain 4 (synthesis and findings). And five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Phase 3 (risk of bias in the review). By PRISMA 2020, there were some reporting deficiencies in the aspects of abstract (2/11, 18.18%), search strategy (0/11, 0%), preprocessing of merging data (0/11, 0%), heterogeneity exploration (6/11, 54.55%), sensitivity analysis (4/11, 36.36%), publication bias (5/11, 45.45%), evidence quality (3/11, 27.27%), the list of excluded references (3/11, 27.27%), protocol and registration (1/11, 9.09%), funding (1/11, 9.09%), conflict of interest (3/11, 27.27%), and approach to relevant information (0/11, 0%). In GRADE, the evidence quality was defined as moderate quality (8 items, 21.05%), low quality (16 items, 42.11%), and critically low quality (14 items, 36.84%). Among the downgraded factors, risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were the main factors. A re-meta-analysis revealed that manual therapy can increase the total effective rate in KOA patients (risk ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [1.12, 1.18], p < 0.00001; I2 = 0, p = 0.84). There are four reviews that narratively report adverse effects, and no severe adverse reactions occurred in the manual therapy group. Conclusions Manual therapy may be clinically effective and safe for patients with KOA. However, this conclusion must be interpreted with caution because of the generally unsatisfactory study quality and inconsistent conclusions of the included SRs/MAs. Further rigorous and normative SRs/MAs are expected to be carried out to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero, identifier: CRD42022364672.

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of targeted therapies for cancer has contributed to dramatic improvements in patient survival. Nevertheless, several targeted therapies have been associated with 'off-target' adverse effects, based on varying levels of evidence. To date, this evidence has not been systematically synthesised. We will synthesise published systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity associated with targeted cancer therapies.Methods and analysisWe will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and observational studies that report on cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents. We will identify systematic reviews by applying predeveloped, standardised search strategies within Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central. Two independent reviewers will identify reviews published up to 31 December 2016 using predefined eligibility criteria. They will resolve ambiguous cases through consensus, arbitrated by a third reviewer if required. The reviewers will extract and report data according to methodological guidelines for overviews provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. They will assess the quality of included reviews by applying the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. They will judge the quality of evidence in included reviews based on their assessment of bias and incorporation into the interpretation of findings. In synthesising the evidence, we will classify agents based on systematic review evidence of toxicity (sufficient, probable, possible or indeterminate) for specific cardiovascular outcomes (congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction decline, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and hypertension). This will provide clinicians and patients with an accessible synthesis based on robust methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for overviews. We will conduct the study in collaboration with consumer representatives. We will submit results for peer-review publication, and disseminate them through established clinical and consumer networks.Prospero registration numberCRD42017080014.