scholarly journals Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Sean Riley ◽  
Brian T. Swanson ◽  
Steven F. Sawyer ◽  
Jean-Michel Brismée ◽  
Geoffrey Staysniak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Therapy Interventions ◽  
High Level ◽  
Quality Evidence

scholarly journals Physical Therapy Interventions for Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gro Jamtvedt ◽  
Kristin Thuve Dahm ◽  
Anne Christie ◽  
Rikke H Moe ◽  
Espen Haavardsholm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Therapy Interventions ◽  
Quality Evidence

Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee are commonly treated by physical therapists. Practice should be informed by updated evidence from systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physical therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2007 were identified by a comprehensive literature search. We graded the quality of evidence across reviews for each comparison and outcome. Twenty-three systematic reviews on physical therapy interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. There is high-quality evidence that exercise and weight reduction reduce pain and improve physical function in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. There is moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and low-level laser therapy reduce pain and that psychoeducational interventions improve psychological outcomes. For other interventions and outcomes, the quality of evidence is low or there is no evidence from systematic reviews.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 747-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy P. Siddaway ◽  
Alex M. Wood ◽  
Larry V. Hedges
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

The effects of hip-targeted physical therapy interventions on low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 91-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A. Bernet ◽  
Erin T. Peskura ◽  
Samuel T. Meyer ◽  
Patrick C. Bauch ◽  
Megan B. Donaldson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Therapy Interventions

scholarly journals Leap Motion Controller Video Game-Based Therapy for Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Patients with Central Nervous System Diseases. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 2065
Author(s):  
Irene Cortés-Pérez ◽  
Noelia Zagalaz-Anula ◽  
Desirée Montoro-Cárdenas ◽  
Rafael Lomas-Vega ◽  
Esteban Obrero-Gaitán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leap Motion ◽  
Motion Controller ◽  
Motor Dexterity ◽  
Quality Evidence

Leap Motion Controller (LMC) is a virtual reality device that can be used in the rehabilitation of central nervous system disease (CNSD) motor impairments. This review aimed to evaluate the effect of video game-based therapy with LMC on the recovery of upper extremity (UE) motor function in patients with CNSD. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed in PubMed Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and PEDro. We included five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with CNSD in which LMC was used as experimental therapy compared to conventional therapy (CT) to restore UE motor function. Pooled effects were estimated with Cohen’s standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). At first, in patients with stroke, LMC showed low-quality evidence of a large effect on UE mobility (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.47, 1.45). In combination with CT, LMC showed very low-quality evidence of a large effect on UE mobility (SMD = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.49, 2.19) and the UE mobility-oriented task (SMD = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.42, 2.10). Second, in patients with non-acute CNSD (cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease), LMC showed low-quality evidence of a medium effect on grip strength (GS) (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.90) and on gross motor dexterity (GMD) (SMD = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.28, 1.17) in the most affected UE. In combination with CT, LMC showed very low-quality evidence of a high effect in the most affected UE on GMD (SMD = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.06, 1.15) and fine motor dexterity (FMD) (SMD = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.07, 1.57). In stroke, LMC improved UE mobility and UE mobility-oriented tasks, and in non-acute CNSD, LMC improved the GS and GMD of the most affected UE and FMD when it was used with CT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document