scholarly journals Exercise for patients with major depression: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e014820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Krogh ◽  
Carsten Hjorthøj ◽  
Helene Speyer ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Merete Nordentoft
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Depression Severity ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of exercise in patients with depression.DesignSystematic reviewData sourcesBibliographical databases were searched until 20 June 2017.Eligibility criteria and outcomesEligible trials were randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of exercise in participants diagnosed with depression. Primary outcomes were depression severity, lack of remission and serious adverse events (eg, suicide) assessed at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were quality of life and adverse events such as injuries, as well as assessment of depression severity and lack of remission during follow-up after the intervention.ResultsThirty-five trials enrolling 2498 participants were included. The effect of exercise versus control on depression severity was −0.66 standardised mean difference (SMD) (95% CI −0.86 to −0.46; p<0.001; grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE): very low quality). Restricting this analysis to the four trials that seemed less affected of bias, the effect vanished into −0.11 SMD (−0.41 to 0.18; p=0.45; GRADE: low quality). Exercise decreased the relative risk of no remission to 0.78 (0.68 to 0.90; p<0.001; GRADE: very low quality). Restricting this analysis to the two trials that seemed less affected of bias, the effect vanished into 0.95 (0.74 to 1.23; p=0.78). Trial sequential analysis excluded random error when all trials were analysed, but not if focusing on trials less affected of bias. Subgroup analyses found that trial size and intervention duration were inversely associated with effect size for both depression severity and lack of remission. There was no significant effect of exercise on secondary outcomes.ConclusionsTrials with less risk of bias suggested no antidepressant effects of exercise and there were no significant effects of exercise on quality of life, depression severity or lack of remission during follow-up. Data for serious adverse events and adverse events were scarce not allowing conclusions for these outcomes.Systematic review registrationThe protocol was published in the journalSystematic Reviews: 2015; 4:40.

scholarly journals Duloxetine versus ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Kiran Kumar Katakam ◽  
Klaus Munkholm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods/design A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Discussion No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931

scholarly journals Psychotherapy versus treatment as usual and other control interventions in children and adolescents with overweight and obesity: a protocol for systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e036058
Author(s):  
Rajeeb Rashid ◽  
Laura Condon ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen ◽  
Jane Lindschou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment As Usual

IntroductionThe prevalence of children with overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide. Multicomponent interventions incorporating diet, physical activity and behavioural change have shown limited improvement to body mass index (BMI). However, the impact of psychotherapy is poorly explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effects of psychotherapeutic approaches for children with all degrees of overweight.Methods and analysisWe will include randomised clinical trials involving children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years with overweight and obesity, irrespective of publication type, year, status or language up to April 2020. Psychotherapy will be compared with no intervention; wait list control; treatment as usual; sham psychotherapy or pharmaceutical placebo. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and LILACS. Primary outcomes will be BMI z-score, quality of life measured by a validated scale and proportion of patients with serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be body weight, self-esteem, anxiety, depression and proportion of patients with non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will be body fat, muscle mass and serious adverse events. Study inclusion, data extraction and bias risk assessments will be conducted independently by at least two authors. We will assess risk of bias according to Cochrane guidelines and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care guidance. We will use meta-analysis and control risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool. The systematic review will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines.Ethics and disseminationAs individual patient data will not be included, we do not require ethics approval. This review will be published in a peer review journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086458.

scholarly journals Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111724
Author(s):  
Mathias Maagaard ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽  
Ning Liang ◽  
Si-Hong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.DesignA systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.Information sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of ‘cardiac failure’ (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), ‘hospitalisations’ (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and ‘ventricular tachycardia’ (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=−5.28; 95% CI −6.60 to −3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.Conclusion and relevanceHigh certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

scholarly journals Safety of Denervation Following Targeted Lung Denervation Therapy for COPD: AIRFLOW-1 Three-year Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Pison ◽  
Pallav Shah ◽  
Dirk-Jan Slebos ◽  
Vincent Ninane ◽  
Wim Janssens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Lung Function ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Clinical Consequences

Abstract Background: Targeted lung denervation (TLD) is a novel bronchoscopic therapy that disrupts parasympathetic pulmonary nerve input to the lung reducing clinical consequences of cholinergic hyperactivity. The AIRFLOW-1 study assessed safety and TLD dose in patients with moderate-to-severe, symptomatic COPD. This analysis evaluated the long-term impact of TLD on COPD exacerbations, pulmonary function, and quality of life over three years of follow up.Methods: TLD was performed in a prospective, energy-level randomized (29 W vs 32 W power), multicenter study (NCT02058459). Additional patients were enrolled in an open label confirmation phase to confirm improved gastrointestinal safety after procedural modifications. Durability of TLD was evaluated at one, two, and three years post-treatment and assessed through analysis of COPD exacerbations, pulmonary lung function, and quality of life. Results: Three-year follow-up data were available for 73.9% of patients (n=34). The annualized rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations remained stable over the duration of the study. Lung function (FEV1, FVC, RV, and TLC) and quality of life (SGRQ-C and CAT) remained stable over three years of follow-up. No new gastrointestinal adverse events and no unexpected serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion: TLD in COPD patients demonstrated a positive safety profile out to three years, with no late-onset serious adverse events related to denervation therapy. Clinical stability in lung function, quality of life, and exacerbations were observed in TLD treated patients over three years of follow up.

scholarly journals Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001288
Author(s):  
Mathias Maagaard ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽  
Liang Ning ◽  
Si-hong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Artery Disease

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life.ResultsWe included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences −0.05; 95% CI −0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results.ConclusionOur findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018112082.

scholarly journals Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e024562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Sara Russo Krauss ◽  
Marie Oxenboell Collet ◽  
Laura Krone Larsen ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Pharmacological Prevention ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectivesWe assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS.Outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium. Secondary outcomes: quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function.ResultsWe included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents.ConclusionBased on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016046628.

scholarly journals Safety of denervation following targeted lung denervation therapy for COPD: AIRFLOW-1 3-year outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pison Christophe ◽  
L. Shah Pallav ◽  
Slebos Dirk-Jan ◽  
Ninane Vincent ◽  
Janssens Wim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Lung Function ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Clinical Consequences

Abstract Background Targeted lung denervation (TLD) is a novel bronchoscopic therapy that disrupts parasympathetic pulmonary nerve input to the lung reducing clinical consequences of cholinergic hyperactivity. The AIRFLOW-1 study assessed safety and TLD dose in patients with moderate-to-severe, symptomatic COPD. This analysis evaluated the long-term impact of TLD on COPD exacerbations, pulmonary function, and quality of life over 3 years of follow up. Methods TLD was performed in a prospective, energy-level randomized (29 W vs 32 W power), multicenter study (NCT02058459). Additional patients were enrolled in an open label confirmation phase to confirm improved gastrointestinal safety after procedural modifications. Durability of TLD was evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years post-treatment and assessed through analysis of COPD exacerbations, pulmonary lung function, and quality of life. Results Three-year follow-up data were available for 73.9% of patients (n = 34). The annualized rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations remained stable over the duration of the study. Lung function (FEV1, FVC, RV, and TLC) and quality of life (SGRQ-C and CAT) remained stable over 3 years of follow-up. No new gastrointestinal adverse events and no unexpected serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion TLD in COPD patients demonstrated a positive safety profile out to 3 years, with no late-onset serious adverse events related to denervation therapy. Clinical stability in lung function, quality of life, and exacerbations were observed in TLD treated patients over 3 years of follow up.

scholarly journals The effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sanam Safi ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Glucocorticosteroids are widely used to treat severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units. However, the evidence on the clinical effects is unclear.Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (PROSPERO CRD42017054341). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and more. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Evidence was assessed by GRADE according to our published protocol.Data Synthesis: We included 24 trials randomizing 3073 participants. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect of adding glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis with a mixed focus for any of our outcomes. Meta-analyses suggested evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone for children with meningitis when assessing serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001, very low certainty of evidence) and ototoxicity (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007, low certainty of evidence). TSAs showed that we did not have sufficient data to confirm or reject these results. We found insufficient evidence to confirm or reject an effect on mortality or our other outcomes. No trials reported quality of life or organ failure. Most trials were at high risks of bias. We found high clinical heterogeneity between participants. None of our TSAs showed benefits, harms or futility. Conclusions: Generally, we found no evidence of an effect of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis without meningitis. Dexamethasone for sepsis in children due to meningitis may decrease serious adverse events and ototoxicity.

scholarly journals Task-oriented exercises improve disability of working patients with surgically-treated proximal humeral fractures. A randomized controlled trial with one-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Monticone ◽  
Igor Portoghese ◽  
Daniele Cazzaniga ◽  
Valentina Liquori ◽  
Giuseppe Marongiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
One Year ◽  
Task Oriented

Abstract Background General physiotherapy is a common means of rehabilitation after surgery for proximal humeral fracture (PHF). Better-targeted exercises seem worthy of investigation and the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a rehabilitation program including task-oriented exercises in improving disability, pain, and quality of life in patients after a PHF. Methods By means of a randomized controlled trial with one-year follow-up, 70 working patients (mean age of 49 ± 11 years; 41 females), who were selected for open reduction and internal fixation with plates caused by PHF, were randomized to be included in an experimental (n = 35) or control group (n = 35). There was a permuted-block randomization plan, and a list of program codes was previously created; subsequently, an automatic assignment system was used to conceal the allocation. The first group underwent a supervised rehabilitation program of task-oriented exercises based on patients’ specific job activities, and occupational therapy. The second group underwent general physiotherapy, including supervised mobility, strengthening and stretching exercises. Both groups individually followed programs of 60-min session three times per week for 12 weeks in the outpatient setting. The Disability Arm Shoulder Hand questionnaire (DASH; scores range from 0 to 100; primary outcome), a Pain intensity Numerical Rating Scale (scores range 0 to 10; secondary outcomes), and the Short-Form Health Survey (scores range from 0 to 100; secondary outcomes) assessed the interventions. Participants were evaluated before surgery, before and after rehabilitation (primary endpoint), and at the one-year follow-up (secondary endpoint). A linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was carried out for each outcome measure (p < 0.05). Results Time, group and time by group showed significant effects for all outcome measures in favour of the experimental group. The DASH and the DASH work achieved clinically important between-group differences of 16.0 points (95% confidence interval [C.I.] 7.3 to 24.7) and 19.7 (95% C.I. 9.0 to 30.5) at follow-up, respectively. The NRS achieved a between-group difference of 2.9 (95% C.I. 1.0 to 3.9) at follow-up. As for SF-36, there were between-group differences ranging from 17.9 to 37.0 at follow-up. Conclusions A rehabilitation program based on task-oriented exercises was useful in improving disability, pain, and quality of life in working patients after PHFs. Improvements lasted for at least 12 months. Trial registration On 16/12/2019, the trial was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry with the ID number 17996552.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document