Effectiveness of motor imagery and action observation training on musculoskeletal pain intensity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 886-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Suso‐Martí ◽  
Roy La Touche ◽  
Santiago Angulo‐Díaz‐Parreño ◽  
Ferran Cuenca‐Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Motor Imagery ◽  
Action Observation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Observation Training

Pain-Related Fear, Pain Intensity and Function in Individuals With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1394-1415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Martinez-Calderon ◽  
Mar Flores-Cortes ◽  
Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
Alejandro Luque-Suarez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
And Function

scholarly journals Action observation training for rehabilitation in brain injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Buchignani ◽  
Elena Beani ◽  
Valerie Pomeroy ◽  
Oriana Iacono ◽  
Elisa Sicola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Damage ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Action Observation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Body Function ◽  
Observation Training ◽  
Activity Domain

Abstract Background To systematically review and analyse the effects of Action Observation Training on adults and children with brain damage. Methods Seven electronic databases (Cochrane, EBSCO, Embase, Eric, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched up to 16 September 2018 to select Randomized Controlled Trials focused on adults and children with brain damage that included AOT training on upper and/or lower limb carried out for at least 1 week. Identification of studies and data extraction was conducted with two reviewers working independently. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (March2009) – Levels of Evidence and Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale were used to grade studies. The data collected from the articles were analysed using software R, version 3.4.3. Hedge’s g values were calculated and effect size estimates were pooled across studies. Separate meta-analyses were carried out for each ICF domain (i.e. body function and activity) for upper and lower limb. Results Out of the 210 records identified after removing duplicates, 22 were selected for systematic review and 19 were included in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies included in the meta-analysis focused on upper limb rehabilitation (4 in children and 9 in adults) and 6 on lower limb rehabilitation (only studies in adults). A total of 626 patients were included in the meta-analysis. An overall statistically significant effect size was found for upper limb body function (0.44, 95% CI: [0.24, 0.64], p < 0.001) and upper limb activity domain (0.47, 95% CI: [0.30, 0.64], p < 0.001). For lower limb, only the activity domain was analysed, revealing a statistically significant overall effect size (0.56, 95% CI: [0.28, 0.84], p < 0.001). Conclusions Action Observation Training (AOT) is an innovative rehabilitation tool for individuals with brain damage, which shows promising results in improving the activity domain for upper and lower limbs, and also the body function domain for the upper limb. However, the examined studies lack uniformity and further well-designed, larger controlled trials are necessary to determine the most suitable type of AOT particularly in children. Systematic review registration CRD42019119600.

scholarly journals The effects of action observation training on improving upper limb motor functions in people with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. e0221166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bingbing Zhang ◽  
Laidi Kan ◽  
Anqin Dong ◽  
Jiaqi Zhang ◽  
Zhongfei Bai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Action Observation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Functions ◽  
Observation Training

Fear of pain and pain intensity: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. 411-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Markfelder ◽  
Paul Pauli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fear Of Pain

scholarly journals Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of treatments for aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in breast cancer patients: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033461
Author(s):  
Kyeore Bae ◽  
Si Yeon Song
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Aromatase Inhibitor ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionAromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia (AIA) is a major adverse event of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and leads to premature discontinuation of AI therapy in breast cancer patients. The objective of this protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to provide the methodology to compare the change in pain intensity between different AIA treatments and demonstrate the rank probabilities for different treatments by combining all available direct and indirect evidence.Methods and analysisPubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched to identify publications in English from inception to November 2019. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different treatments for AIA in postmenopausal women with stage 0–III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The primary endpoints will be the change in patient-reported pain intensity from baseline to post-treatment. The number of adverse events will be presented as a secondary outcome.Both pairwise meta-analysis and NMA with the Frequentist approach will be conducted. We will demonstrate summary estimates with forest plots in meta-analysis and direct and mixed evidence with a ranking of the treatments as the P-score in NMA. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials will be used to assess the methodological quality within individual RCTs. The quality of evidence will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationAs this review does not involve individual patients, ethical approval is not required. The results of this systematic review and NMA will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This review will provide valuable information on AIA therapeutic options for clinicians, health practitioners and breast cancer survivors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019136967.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document