Effectiveness of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions in patients with fibromyalgia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Felipe Araya-Quintanilla, Iván Cuyul-Vásquez, Andrea Lizama-Lefno, Andres Jeria-Diaz, Jorge Fuentes, Mayte Serrat, Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza
{"title":"Effectiveness of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions in patients with fibromyalgia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Felipe Araya-Quintanilla, Iván Cuyul-Vásquez, Andrea Lizama-Lefno, Andres Jeria-Diaz, Jorge Fuentes, Mayte Serrat, Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza","doi":"10.1177/10538127251337393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundFibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain disease characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain. The multicomponent treatment has showed improves symptom management in patients with FM. However, inconsistent results have been demonstrated in previous studies. Additionally, none of these studies have analyzed the effect on psychological outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions for pain intensity and functional status, quality of life, depression and pain anxiety in patients with FM.MethodsAn electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, CENTRAL EMBASE, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and LILACS databases. The eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions (active and passive) in patients older than 18 years with FM. Effect sizes were calculated as a standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI using random-effects Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman or the Mantel-Haenszel fixed method. The quality of intervention reporting was assessed with the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2, and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE approach. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria, including 3476 patients. At 10-16 weeks, for multicomponent treatment versus all other interventions, the standardized mean difference in pain intensity was -0.51 (95% CI: -0.92 to -0.10, <i>P</i> <i>=</i> <i>0.021</i>). For functional status, quality of life, depression, and anxiety, statistically significant differences were found in favor of multicomponent treatment (all <i>P</i> values <0.05). Additionally, there were no differences in the effects of multicomponent treatment and passive interventions on any clinical outcomes. Finally, our study has some limitations such as lack methodology of some clinical trials included and high heterogeneity could be over-or-under estimation the effects of the intervention's studied.ConclusionIn the medium term, multicomponent treatment, in comparison with all other interventions (active and passive), showed statistically and clinically significant differences with moderate effect size in pain intensity in patients with FM. The quality of evidence was low to high according to the GRADE approach. Additionally, there were no differences between multicomponent treatment and passive interventions in patients with FM.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020142082.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251337393"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251337393","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundFibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain disease characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain. The multicomponent treatment has showed improves symptom management in patients with FM. However, inconsistent results have been demonstrated in previous studies. Additionally, none of these studies have analyzed the effect on psychological outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions for pain intensity and functional status, quality of life, depression and pain anxiety in patients with FM.MethodsAn electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, CENTRAL EMBASE, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and LILACS databases. The eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of multicomponent treatment compared with other therapeutic interventions (active and passive) in patients older than 18 years with FM. Effect sizes were calculated as a standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI using random-effects Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman or the Mantel-Haenszel fixed method. The quality of intervention reporting was assessed with the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2, and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE approach. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria, including 3476 patients. At 10-16 weeks, for multicomponent treatment versus all other interventions, the standardized mean difference in pain intensity was -0.51 (95% CI: -0.92 to -0.10, P=0.021). For functional status, quality of life, depression, and anxiety, statistically significant differences were found in favor of multicomponent treatment (all P values <0.05). Additionally, there were no differences in the effects of multicomponent treatment and passive interventions on any clinical outcomes. Finally, our study has some limitations such as lack methodology of some clinical trials included and high heterogeneity could be over-or-under estimation the effects of the intervention's studied.ConclusionIn the medium term, multicomponent treatment, in comparison with all other interventions (active and passive), showed statistically and clinically significant differences with moderate effect size in pain intensity in patients with FM. The quality of evidence was low to high according to the GRADE approach. Additionally, there were no differences between multicomponent treatment and passive interventions in patients with FM.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020142082.

多组分治疗与其他治疗干预对纤维肌痛患者的疗效比较:一项荟萃分析的系统综述。
背景纤维肌痛(FM)是一种以广泛的肌肉骨骼疼痛为特征的慢性疼痛疾病。多组分治疗改善了FM患者的症状管理。然而,在以往的研究中已经证明了不一致的结果。此外,这些研究都没有分析对心理结果的影响。目的比较多组分治疗与其他治疗干预对FM患者疼痛强度和功能状态、生活质量、抑郁和疼痛焦虑的影响。方法采用MEDLINE、CENTRAL EMBASE、Web of Science、PEDro、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、Scopus和LILACS数据库进行电子检索。资格标准包括随机临床试验(rct),研究多组分治疗与其他治疗干预(主动和被动)对18岁以上FM患者的影响。使用随机效应hartung - knap - sidik - jonkman或Mantel-Haenszel固定方法,以95% CI的标准平均差(SMD)计算效应量。采用偏倚风险(Risk of Bias, RoB) 2评价干预报告的质量,采用GRADE方法评价证据的确定性。两位作者独立进行了检索、研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。结果25项rct符合入选标准,共3476例患者。在10-16周时,多组分治疗与所有其他干预相比,疼痛强度的标准化平均差异为-0.51 (95% CI: -0.92至-0.10,P = 0.021)。在功能状态、生活质量、抑郁和焦虑方面,采用多组分治疗的差异有统计学意义(P值均为0.05)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信