Effect of Manual Therapy and Therapeutic Exercise Applied to the Cervical Region on Pain and Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 2373-2384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy La Touche ◽  
Sergio Martínez García ◽  
Beatriz Serrano García ◽  
Alejandro Proy Acosta ◽  
Daniel Adraos Juárez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Temporomandibular Disorders ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cervical Region ◽  
Pressure Pain ◽  
Pressure Pain Thresholds

Abstract Objective To assess the effectiveness of cervical manual therapy (MT) on patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and to compare cervico-craniomandibular MT vs cervical MT. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis (MA). Methods A search in PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, and Google Scholar was conducted with an end date of February 2019. Two independent reviewers performed the data analysis, assessing the relevance of the randomized clinical trials regarding the studies’ objectives. The qualitative analysis was based on classifying the results into levels of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results Regarding cervical MT, MA included three studies and showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity reduction and an increase in masseter pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), with a large clinical effect. In addition, the results showed an increase in temporalis PPT, with a moderate clinical effect. MA included two studies on cervical MT vs cervico-craniomandibular MT interventions and showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity reduction and pain-free maximal mouth opening, with a large clinical effect. Conclusions Cervical MT treatment is more effective in decreasing pain intensity than placebo MT or minimal intervention, with moderate evidence. Cervico-craniomandibular interventions achieved greater short-term reductions in pain intensity and increased pain-free MMO over cervical intervention alone in TMD and headache, with low evidence.

scholarly journals Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11806
Author(s):  
Beatriz Brea-Gómez ◽  
Irene Torres-Sánchez ◽  
Araceli Ortiz-Rubio ◽  
Andrés Calvache-Mateo ◽  
Irene Cabrera-Martos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Back

Virtual reality (VR) can present advantages in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the effectiveness of VR in chronic low back pain. This review was designed according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020222129). Four databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched up to August 2021. Inclusion criteria were defined following PICOS recommendations. Methodological quality was assessed with the Downs and Black scale and the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and eleven in the meta-analysis. Significant differences were found in favor of VR compared to no VR in pain intensity postintervention (11 trials; n = 569; SMD = −1.92; 95% CI = −2.73, −1.11; p < 0.00001) and followup (4 trials; n = 240; SDM = −6.34; 95% CI = −9.12, −3.56; p < 0.00001); and kinesiophobia postintervention (3 trials; n = 192; MD = −8.96; 95% CI = −17.52, −0.40; p = 0.04) and followup (2 trials; n = 149; MD = −12.04; 95% CI = −20.58, −3.49; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in disability. In conclusion, VR can significantly reduce pain intensity and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain after the intervention and at followup. However, high heterogeneity exists and can influence the consistency of the results.

Dry Needling for the Treatment Of Tension-Type, Cervicogenic, or Migraine Headaches: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammadreza Pourahmadi ◽  
Jan Dommerholt ◽  
César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas ◽  
Bart Willem Koes ◽  
Mohammad Ali Mohseni-Bandpei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dry Needling ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Patient Will ◽  
Headache Pain ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Objective Dry needling is a treatment technique used by clinicians to relieve symptoms in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), cervicogenic headache (CGH), or migraine. This systematic review's main objective was to assess the effectiveness of dry needling on headache pain intensity and related-disability in patients with TTH, CGH, or migraine. Methods Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase®, PEDro, WoS, Ovid, AMED/EBSCO, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and trial registries were searched until April 1, 2020, along with reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews. Randomized clinical trials or observational studies that compared the effectiveness of dry needling with any other interventions were eligible for inclusion. Three reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to produce pooled-effect estimates (Morris’s dppc2) and their respective confidence intervals. Results Of 2715 identified studies, 11 randomized clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 9 for meta-analysis. Only four trials were of high quality. Very low-quality evidence suggested that dry needling is not statistically better than other interventions for improving headache pain intensity at short-term in patients with TTH (SMD −1.27, 95% CI −3.56 to 1.03, n = 230), CGH (SMD −0.41, 95% CI −4.69 to 3.87, n = 104), or mixed headache (TTH and migraine; SMD 0.03; 95% CI −0.42 to 0.48, n = 90). Dry needling provided significantly greater improvement in related-disability at short-term in patients with TTH (SMD −2.28, 95% CI −2.66 to −1.91, n = 160) and CGH (SMD −0.72, 95% CI −1.09 to −0.34, n = 144). The synthesis of results showed that dry needling could significantly improve headache frequency, health-related quality of life, trigger point tenderness, and cervical range of motion in TTH and CGH. Conclusions Dry needling produces similar effects to other interventions for short-term headache pain relief, whereas dry needling seems to be better than other therapies for improvement in related-disability in the short-term. Impact Although further high methodological quality studies are warranted to provide a more robust conclusion, our systematic review suggested that for every one to two patients with TTH treating by dry needling, one patient will likely show decreased headache intensity (NNT = 2; large effect) and improved related-disability (NNT = 1; very large effect). In CGH, for every three to four patients treating by dry needling, one patient will likely exhibit decreased headache intensity (NNT = 4; small effect) and improved related-disability (NNT = 3; medium effect).

scholarly journals Exploring the pain in patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis examining signs of central sensitization

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kemery J. Sigmund ◽  
Marie K. Hoeger Bement ◽  
Jennifer E. Earl-Boehm
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Sensitization ◽  
Temporal Summation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Pain Thresholds ◽  
Pressure Pain ◽  
Pressure Pain Thresholds ◽  
Pain Mapping

Objective: Patellofemoral pain has high recurrence rates and minimal long-term treatment success. Central sensitization refers to dysfunctional pain modulation that occurs when nociceptive neurons become hyper responsive. Research in this area in PFP has been increasingly productive in the past decade. The aim of this review is to determine whether evidence supports manifestations of central sensitization in individuals with PFP. Data sources: MeSH terms for quantitative sensory testing (QST) pressure pain thresholds, conditioned pain modulation, temporal summation, sensitization, hyperalgesia, and anterior knee pain or PFP were searched in PubMed, SportDiscus, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, and Ebscohost. Study Selection: Peer reviewed studies written in English, published between 2005–2020 which investigated QST and/or pain mapping in a sample with PFP were included in this review. Data Extraction: The initial search yielded 140 articles. After duplicates were removed, 78 article abstracts were reviewed. Full-text review of 21 studies occurred, with 11 studies included in the meta-analysis and eight studies included in the systematic review. Data Synthesis: A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for four QST variables (local pressure pain thresholds, remote pressure pain thresholds, conditioned pain modulation, temporal summation). Strong evidence supports lower local and remote pressure pain thresholds, impaired conditioned pain modulation, and facilitated temporal summation in individuals with PFP compared to pain-free individuals. Conflicting evidence is presented for heat and cold pain thresholds. Pain mapping demonstrated expanding pain patterns associated with long PFP symptom duration. Conclusions: Signs of central sensitization are present in individuals with PFP, indicating altered pain modulation. PFP etiological and treatment models should reflect the current body of evidence regarding central sensitization. Signs of central sensitization should be monitored clinically and treatments with central effects should be considered as part of a multi-modal plan of care. Registration Number: This review is registered with Prospero (CRD42019127548) Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO Key Points:

Effectiveness of Hands-Off Therapy in the Management of Primary Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 016327872098340
Author(s):  
Naziru Bashir Mukhtar ◽  
Mira Meeus ◽  
Ceren Gursen ◽  
Jibril Mohammed ◽  
Robby De Pauw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Relaxation Training ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Headache ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pain Education ◽  
Chronic Headaches

A number of hands-off therapies have been widely reported and are used in the management of headache. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess evidence supporting these therapies on selected headache outcomes. A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials reporting on the effects of hands-off therapies for headache was performed in two electronic databases; PubMed and Web of Science (PROSPERO: CRD42018093559). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager v5.4. Thirty-five studies, including 3,403 patients with migraine, tension-type or chronic headaches were included in the review. Methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to good. Result-synthesis revealed moderate evidence for aerobic exercises, relaxation training and pain education for reducing pain intensity and disability. Other hands-off interventions were either weak or limited in evidence. Meta-analysis of 22 studies indicated that the effect of hands-off therapies significantly differed from one another for pain intensity, disability and quality of life (p < 0.05). Relaxation training, aerobic and active/stretching exercises had significant effect on pain intensity and disability (p < 0.05). To conclude, few hands-off therapies were effective on selected headache outcomes. Evidence to support other hands-off therapies is limited by paucity of studies.

The importance of the local twitch response during needling interventions in spinal pain associated with myofascial trigger points: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 096452842110563
Author(s):  
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas ◽  
Gustavo Plaza-Manzano ◽  
Jorge Sanchez-Infante ◽  
Guido F Gómez-Chiguano ◽  
Joshua A Cleland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Trigger Points ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Myofascial Trigger Points ◽  
Pain Thresholds ◽  
Pressure Pain ◽  
Pressure Pain Thresholds

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of needling interventions eliciting local twitch responses (LTRs) versus needling without eliciting LTRs when applied to muscle trigger points (TrPs) associated with spinal pain of musculoskeletal origin. Databases and data treatment: Electronic databases were searched for randomized or non-randomized clinical trials where one group received needling intervention where LTRs were elicited and was compared with another group receiving the same intervention without elicitation of LTRs in spinal pain disorders associated with TrPs. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, and pressure pain thresholds. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or ROBINS-I tool, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: Six trials were included. The application of a needling intervention eliciting LTRs was associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity immediately after treatment (mean difference (MD): −2.03 points, 95% confidence interval (CI): −3.77 to −0.29; standardized MD (SMD): −1.35, 95% CI: −2.32 to −0.38, p = 0.02) when compared to the same needling intervention without elicitation of LTRs. No effect at short-term follow-up (MD: −0.20 points, 95% CI: −1.46 to 1.06, p = 0.75) was observed. No significant differences based on elicitation or non-elicitation of LTRs were found in related disability (SMD: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.30, p = 0.77) or pressure pain thresholds (MD: 23.39 kPa, 95% CI: −13.68 to 60.47, p = 0.22). Discussion: Low-level evidence suggests an immediate effect of obtaining LTRs during needling interventions on pain intensity, with no significant effects on related disability or pressure pain sensitivity in spinal pain disorders associated with muscle TrPs. Registration number: OSF Registry— https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5ZX9N

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document