Mobilisation or immobilisation-based treatments for first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION
Hand Therapy Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-26 DOI:10.1177/17589983221083994
Nicoló Edoardo Magni, Peter John McNair, David Andrew Rice
{"title":"Mobilisation or immobilisation-based treatments for first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.","authors":"Nicoló Edoardo Magni,&nbsp;Peter John McNair,&nbsp;David Andrew Rice","doi":"10.1177/17589983221083994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Both joint mobilisation and immobilisation are thought to be effective in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this review was to establish whether either intervention reduced pain and improved pinch strength in people with first CMCJ OA in the short term and assess whether one intervention is superior to the other.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases were searched until May 2021. Only RCTs were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were utilised to rate the evidence. Random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were included with a total of 417 participants. Mobilisation treatments included manual therapy with or without exercise while immobilisation interventions utilised thumb splinting with several different designs. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed that mobilisation led to statistically but not clinically significant improvements in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03 to 1; I<sup>2</sup> = 60%; <i>p</i> = 0.06) and pinch strength (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.7; I<sup>2</sup> = 12%; <i>p</i> = 0.3) compared to placebo. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed no effect on pain and pinch strength compared to a control or no intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed no difference between interventions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Neither mobilisation nor immobilisation alone led to clinically important improvements in pain or pinch strength in the short term in people with symptomatic first CMCJ OA. Neither therapeutic strategy appeared to be superior.</p>","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":"27 2","pages":"37-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10584044/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17589983221083994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Both joint mobilisation and immobilisation are thought to be effective in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this review was to establish whether either intervention reduced pain and improved pinch strength in people with first CMCJ OA in the short term and assess whether one intervention is superior to the other.

Method: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases were searched until May 2021. Only RCTs were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were utilised to rate the evidence. Random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses were used.

Results: Eight studies were included with a total of 417 participants. Mobilisation treatments included manual therapy with or without exercise while immobilisation interventions utilised thumb splinting with several different designs. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed that mobilisation led to statistically but not clinically significant improvements in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03 to 1; I2 = 60%; p = 0.06) and pinch strength (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.7; I2 = 12%; p = 0.3) compared to placebo. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed no effect on pain and pinch strength compared to a control or no intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed no difference between interventions.

Discussion: Neither mobilisation nor immobilisation alone led to clinically important improvements in pain or pinch strength in the short term in people with symptomatic first CMCJ OA. Neither therapeutic strategy appeared to be superior.

首次腕掌关节骨关节炎的基于活动或固定的治疗:一项系统综述和亚组分析的荟萃分析。
引言:关节活动和固定被认为是治疗第一腕掌关节骨关节炎的有效方法。这篇综述的目的是确定任何一种干预措施是否能在短期内减轻首次CMCJ OA患者的疼痛并改善捏力,并评估一种干预方法是否优于另一种。方法:进行系统综述和荟萃分析。截至2021年5月,共搜索了7个数据库。仅纳入随机对照试验。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和建议等级评估、发展和评估系统对证据进行评分。采用随机效应荟萃分析和亚组分析。结果:共有417名参与者参与了8项研究。活动治疗包括有或无运动的手动治疗,而固定干预则使用几种不同设计的拇指夹板。非常低质量和低质量的证据表明,动员导致疼痛的统计学但非临床显著改善(标准化平均差(SMD)=0.53;95%置信区间(CI)=0.03比1;I2=60%;p=0.06)和夹持强度(SMD=0.35;95%CI=0.03至0.7;I2=12%;p=0.3)。与对照组或不干预组相比,非常低质量和低质量的证据对疼痛和挤压强度没有影响。亚组分析显示干预措施之间没有差异。讨论:在有症状的首次CMCJ OA患者中,无论是单独的活动还是固定都不会在短期内对疼痛或挤压强度产生临床上重要的改善。两种治疗策略似乎都不优越。
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
Hand Therapy
Hand Therapy REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信