Manual therapy for the management of pain and limited range of motion in subjects with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorder: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (11) ◽  
pp. 847-861 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. B. Calixtre ◽  
R. F. C. Moreira ◽  
G. H. Franchini ◽  
F. Alburquerque-Sendín ◽  
A. B. Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Temporomandibular Disorder ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Limited Range Of Motion ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals The effectiveness of manual therapy applied to craniomandibular structures in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: protocol for a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Asquini ◽  
Alison Rushton ◽  
Laurent Pitance ◽  
Nicola Heneghan ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Temporomandibular Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Abstract Background The term temporomandibular disorder (TMD) includes disorders of the temporomandibular joints (TMJ), masticatory muscles and adjacent tissues. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) for TMDs by evaluating changes in pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO). Nevertheless, the effectiveness of MT exclusively applied to the craniomandibular structures (craniomandibular manual therapy (CMMT)) on pain and TMJ range of motion remains unclear. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CMMT on pain and TMJ range of motion in people with TMDs. Methods This protocol is reported in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, SCOPUS, PEDro, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Best Evidence, EBM reviews–Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Index to Chiropractic Literature ChiroAccess and Google Scholar will be searched from inception as well as key journals and grey literature. Randomised controlled trials involving adults with TMD that compare the effect of any type of CMMT (e.g. mobilisation) on pain and range of motion with a placebo intervention, controlled care intervention or other types of treatment will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for inclusion, extract data, assess risk of bias (revised Cochrane risk of bias tool) for included studies and evaluate overall quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). A meta-analysis will be conducted if possible. If not, a narrative synthesis will be conducted reporting the effectiveness of CMMT according to disorder type (TMJ disorders, masticatory muscle disorders and mixed disorders). Discussion In this review, the effectiveness of MT applied to craniomandibular structures for the treatment of TMD will be evaluated. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. We expect our findings will facilitate treatment planning for manual therapists managing patients with TMD and provide future clinical research implications. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019160213

scholarly journals Effectiveness of manual therapy in COPD: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Pulmonology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Simonelli ◽  
M. Vitacca ◽  
M. Vignoni ◽  
N. Ambrosino ◽  
M. Paneroni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Messina ◽  
Chiara Robba ◽  
Lorenzo Calabrò ◽  
Daniel Zambelli ◽  
Francesca Iannuzzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Fluid Management ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Perioperative Fluid Management ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value  = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value  = 0.33) or late (p value  = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document