scholarly journals To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C. Stockley ◽  
Kerry Hanna ◽  
Louise Connell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hand Function ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Sensory Stimulation ◽  
Treatment Session ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Repetitive Sensory Stimulation

Abstract Background Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. Main text Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. Results Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusions This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke.

scholarly journals Repetitive Peripheral Sensory Stimulation and Upper Limb Performance in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 863-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Bastos Conforto ◽  
Sarah Monteiro dos Anjos ◽  
Wanderley Marques Bernardo ◽  
Arnaldo Alves da Silva ◽  
Juliana Conti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Sensory Stimulation ◽  
Performance Standard ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Mean Difference ◽  
Peripheral Sensory

Background. Enhancement of sensory input in the form of repetitive peripheral sensory stimulation (RPSS) can enhance excitability of the motor cortex and upper limb performance. Objective. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of RPSS compared with control stimulation on improvement of motor outcomes in the upper limb of subjects with stroke. Methods. We searched studies published between 1948 and December 2017 and selected 5 studies that provided individual data and applied a specific paradigm of stimulation (trains of 1-ms pulses at 10 Hz, delivered at 1 Hz). Continuous data were analyzed with means and standard deviations of differences in performance before and after active or control interventions. Adverse events were also assessed. Results. There was a statistically significant beneficial effect of RPSS on motor performance (standard mean difference between active and control RPSS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.09-1.24; I2 = 65%). Only 1 study included subjects in the subacute phase after stroke. Subgroup analysis of studies that only included subjects in the chronic phase showed a significant effect (1.04; 95% CI, 0.66-1.42) with no heterogeneity. Significant results were obtained for outcomes of body structure and function as well as for outcomes of activity limitation according to the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health, when only studies that included subjects in the chronic phase were analyzed. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions. RPSS is a safe intervention with potential to become an adjuvant tool for upper extremity paresis rehabilitation in subjects with stroke in the chronic phase.

Mirror therapy simultaneously combined with electrical stimulation for upper limb motor function recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552095193
Author(s):  
Alberto Saavedra-García ◽  
Jose A Moral-Munoz ◽  
David Lucena-Anton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Mirror Therapy

Objective: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of simultaneous combination of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation in the recovery of upper limb motor function after stroke, compared with conventional therapy, mirror therapy or electrical stimulation isolated. Data sources: Articles published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central register of controlled trials and ScienceDirect up to July 2020. Review methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro tool. The RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis, through the standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to evaluate the risk of bias. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Eight articles were included in this systematic review, seven were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 314 participants were analyzed. The overall quality of the articles included in this review was good. There was no overall significant mean difference on upper limb motor function after stroke using the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment by 1.56 (95% CI = –2.08, 5.20; P = 0.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and the Box and Block Test results by 1.39 (95% CI = –2.14, 4.92; P = 0.44; high-certainty evidence). There was overall significant difference in the Action Research Arm Test by 3.54 (95% CI = 0.18, 6.90; P = 0.04; high-certainty evidence). Conclusion: Direct scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the combined therapy of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation simultaneously for the improvement of the upper limb motor function after stroke is lacking. Further high-quality and well-designed research is needed.

scholarly journals Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (22.2) ◽  
pp. E55-E70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Coulter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Multiple Treatment

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness

Herbal Medicine for Cervicogenic Dizziness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjoo Oh ◽  
Seungwon Shin ◽  
Euiju Lee ◽  
Won-Seok Chung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Reliable Effect ◽  
Cervicogenic Dizziness ◽  
Active Controls

Abstract Background: Herbal medicines (HMs) have been widely used in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) based on their empirical effectiveness and safety. Herein, we reviewed and evaluated the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of HM for CGD. Methods: Among the relevant studies published up to December 2019 in 11 electronic databases, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, and the strength of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: All 17 included RCTs with 1,797 participants were conducted with six types of modified HM prescriptions and three types of active controls. More than half of the included studies were of low quality because of the high risk of bias due to deviations from the intended intervention. HMs plus active controls were more effective in CGD treatment than active controls alone. HMs plus antivertigo drugs, HMs plus manual therapy, and HMs plus acupuncture therapy were all effective in CGD treatment, with HMs plus antivertigo drugs showing the most reliable effect. All HM prescriptions were effective for specific patterns of CGD when administered with active controls, with Banxia Baizhu Tianma tang and Dingxuan tang demonstrating the most reliable effect. No serious adverse events were reported in all included studies. Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that HMs may enhance the treatment effect on CGD when combined with other treatments without serious adverse events. Further high-quality evidence is needed to draw a definite conclusion.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020199222), and the Research Registry (Review Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry1036)

scholarly journals Virtual Reality Systems for Upper Limb Motor Function Recovery in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amaranta De Miguel-Rubio ◽  
M Dolores Rubio ◽  
Alvaro Alba-Rueda ◽  
Alejandro Salazar ◽  
Jose A Moral-Munoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cord Injury

BACKGROUND Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) usually present with different motor impairments, including a deterioration of upper limb motor function (ULMF), that limit their performance of activities of daily living and reduce their quality of life. Virtual reality (VR) is being used in neurological rehabilitation for the assessment and treatment of the physical impairments of this condition. OBJECTIVE A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of VR on ULMF in patients with SCI compared with conventional physical therapy. METHODS The search was performed from October to December 2019 in Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria of selected studies were as follows: (1) comprised adults with SCI, (2) included an intervention with VR, (3) compared VR intervention with conventional physical therapy, (4) reported outcomes related to ULMF, and (5) was a controlled clinical trial. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. RESULTS Six articles were included in this systematic review. Four of them contributed information to the meta-analysis. A total of 105 subjects were analyzed. All of the studies used semi-immersive or nonimmersive VR systems. The statistical analysis showed nonsignificant results for the Nine-Hole Peg Test (SMD –0.93, 95% CI –1.95 to 0.09), muscle balance test (SMD –0.27, 95% CI –0.82 to 0.27), Motricity Index (SMD 0.16, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.68), Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT) subtests (writing, SMD –0.10, 95% CI –4.01 to 3.82; simulated page turning, SMD –0.99, 95% CI –2.01 to 0.02; simulated feeding, SMD –0.64, 95% CI –1.61 to 0.32; stacking checkers, SMD 0.99, 95% CI –0.02 to 2.00; picking up large light objects, SMD –0.42, 95% CI –1.37 to 0.54; and picking up large heavy objects, SMD 0.52, 95% CI –0.44 to 1.49), range of motion of shoulder abduction/adduction (SMD –0.23, 95% CI –1.48 to 1.03), shoulder flexion/extension (SMD 0.56, 95% CI –1.24 to 2.36), elbow flexion (SMD –0.36, 95% CI –1.14 to 0.42), elbow extension (SMD –0.21, 95% CI –0.99 to 0.57), wrist extension (SMD 1.44, 95% CI –2.19 to 5.06), and elbow supination (SMD –0.18, 95% CI –1.80 to 1.44). Favorable results were found for the JTHFT subtest picking up small common objects (SMD –1.33, 95% CI –2.42 to –0.24). CONCLUSIONS The current evidence for VR interventions to improve ULMF in patients with SCI is limited. Future studies employing immersive systems to identify the key aspects that increase the clinical impact of VR interventions are needed, as well as research to prove the benefits of the use of VR in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI in the clinical setting.

scholarly journals Effects of Mind-Body Exercise in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lining Duan ◽  
Yifeng Xu ◽  
Min Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Potential Benefits

Objective. Mind-body exercise may have potential benefits for cancer survivors according to previous studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the published evidence and evaluate the safety and efficacy of mind-body exercise on general quality of life (QOL) and symptom management in cancer survivors. Methods. Four English language databases were systematically searched for existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mind-body exercise in cancer survivors from database inception through October 23, 2019. Methodological quality was appraised with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A meta-analysis of comparative effects was performed using the Review Manager v.5.3 software. Results. Fifteen studies encompassing 1461 patients were included. Analysis results showed that mind-body exercise could have a statistically significant effect on the outcomes of physical fitness, fatigue, sleep quality, depression, anxiety, and BMI, while effects on general QOL and stress were not statistically significant (all p>0.05). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions. The current evidence demonstrates that mind-body exercise is relatively safe and modestly effective for symptom management in cancer survivors. Furthermore, randomized trials with larger sample sizes and of higher methodological quality are needed to confirm these results.

scholarly journals Virtual Reality Systems for Upper Limb Motor Function Recovery in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.2196/22537 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e22537
Author(s):  
Amaranta De Miguel-Rubio ◽  
M Dolores Rubio ◽  
Alvaro Alba-Rueda ◽  
Alejandro Salazar ◽  
Jose A Moral-Munoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cord Injury

Background Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) usually present with different motor impairments, including a deterioration of upper limb motor function (ULMF), that limit their performance of activities of daily living and reduce their quality of life. Virtual reality (VR) is being used in neurological rehabilitation for the assessment and treatment of the physical impairments of this condition. Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of VR on ULMF in patients with SCI compared with conventional physical therapy. Methods The search was performed from October to December 2019 in Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria of selected studies were as follows: (1) comprised adults with SCI, (2) included an intervention with VR, (3) compared VR intervention with conventional physical therapy, (4) reported outcomes related to ULMF, and (5) was a controlled clinical trial. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. Results Six articles were included in this systematic review. Four of them contributed information to the meta-analysis. A total of 105 subjects were analyzed. All of the studies used semi-immersive or nonimmersive VR systems. The statistical analysis showed nonsignificant results for the Nine-Hole Peg Test (SMD –0.93, 95% CI –1.95 to 0.09), muscle balance test (SMD –0.27, 95% CI –0.82 to 0.27), Motricity Index (SMD 0.16, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.68), Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT) subtests (writing, SMD –0.10, 95% CI –4.01 to 3.82; simulated page turning, SMD –0.99, 95% CI –2.01 to 0.02; simulated feeding, SMD –0.64, 95% CI –1.61 to 0.32; stacking checkers, SMD 0.99, 95% CI –0.02 to 2.00; picking up large light objects, SMD –0.42, 95% CI –1.37 to 0.54; and picking up large heavy objects, SMD 0.52, 95% CI –0.44 to 1.49), range of motion of shoulder abduction/adduction (SMD –0.23, 95% CI –1.48 to 1.03), shoulder flexion/extension (SMD 0.56, 95% CI –1.24 to 2.36), elbow flexion (SMD –0.36, 95% CI –1.14 to 0.42), elbow extension (SMD –0.21, 95% CI –0.99 to 0.57), wrist extension (SMD 1.44, 95% CI –2.19 to 5.06), and elbow supination (SMD –0.18, 95% CI –1.80 to 1.44). Favorable results were found for the JTHFT subtest picking up small common objects (SMD –1.33, 95% CI –2.42 to –0.24). Conclusions The current evidence for VR interventions to improve ULMF in patients with SCI is limited. Future studies employing immersive systems to identify the key aspects that increase the clinical impact of VR interventions are needed, as well as research to prove the benefits of the use of VR in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI in the clinical setting.

scholarly journals The Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Spine Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Wei-Ting Wu ◽  
Tsung-Min Lee ◽  
Der-Sheng Han ◽  
Ke-Vin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Degenerative Spine ◽  
Degenerative Spine Disease ◽  
Spine Disease

The association of sarcopenia with poor clinical outcomes has been identified in various medical conditions, although there is a lack of quantitative analysis to validate the influence of sarcopenia on patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease (LDSD) from the available literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LDSD and examine its impact on clinical outcomes. The electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were systematically searched from inception through December 2020 for clinical studies investigating the association of sarcopenia with clinical outcomes in patients with LDSD. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out for data synthesis. This meta-analysis included 14 studies, comprising 1953 participants. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia among patients with LDSD was 24.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3%–34.3%). The relative risk of sarcopenia was not significantly increased in patients with LDSD compared with controls (risk ratio, 1.605; 95% CI, 0.321–8.022). The patients with sarcopenia did not experience an increase in low back and leg pain. However, lower quality of life (SMD, −0.627; 95% CI, −0.844–−0.410) were identified postoperatively. Sarcopenia did not lead to an elevated rate of complications after lumbar surgeries. Sarcopenia accounts for approximately one-quarter of the population with LDSD. The clinical manifestations are less influenced by sarcopenia, whereas sarcopenia is associated with poorer quality of life after lumbar surgeries. The current evidence is still insufficient to support sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document