Manual therapies for pain relief in patients with headache: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
Debora Wanderley ◽  
Andrea Lemos ◽  
Larissa Carvalho ◽  
Daniella Oliveira
2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Zeng ◽  
H. li ◽  
T. Yang ◽  
Z.-h. Deng ◽  
Y. Yang ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Vaaiga Autagavaia ◽  
Jamie-Lee Rahiri ◽  
Melanie Lauti ◽  
Lydia Poole ◽  
Garth Poole ◽  
...  

HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S893
Author(s):  
N. Akter ◽  
B. Ratnayake ◽  
D.B. Joh ◽  
S.-J. Chan ◽  
E. Bonner ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. 335-348
Author(s):  
Nicholas Van Halm-Lutterodt

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial


2012 ◽  
Vol 3S;15 (3S;7) ◽  
pp. ES39-ES58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lakshmi Koyyalagunta

Background: In all recommended guidelines put forth for the treatment of cancer pain, opioids continue to be an important part of a physician’s armamentarium. Though opioids are used regularly for cancer pain, there is a paucity of literature proving efficacy for long-term use. Cancer is no longer considered a “terminal disease”; 50% to 65% of patients survive for at least 2 years, and there are about 12 million cancer survivors in the United States. There is a concern about side effects, tolerance, abuse and addiction with long-term opioid use and a need to evaluate the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to look at the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized trials of opioids for cancer pain. Methods: A comprehensive review of the current literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids for cancer pain was done. The literature search was done using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trials, national clearing house, Web of Science, previous narrative systematic reviews, and cross references. The studies were assessed using the modified Cochrane and Jadad criteria. Analysis of evidence was done utilizing the modified quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (QoL) and side effects including tolerance and addiction. Results: The level of evidence for pain relief based on the USPSTF criteria was fair for transdermal fentanyl and poor for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. Limitations: Randomized trials in a cancer setting are difficult to perform and justify. There is a paucity of long-term trials and this review included a follow-up period of only 4 weeks. Conclusion: This systematic review of RCTs of opioids for cancer pain showed fair evidence for the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl and poor evidence for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. Key words: Opioids, pain relief, cancer pain, morphine, hydromorphone, methadone, fentanyl, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, buprenorphine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document