药物和非药物疗法对足底筋膜炎疼痛和残疾的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Bianca Martins Lourenço , Mariana Gabrich Moraes Campos , Laísa Braga Maia , Brenda Katrovyevysky Costa Castro , Renato Guilherme Trede , Vinicius Cunha Oliveira
{"title":"药物和非药物疗法对足底筋膜炎疼痛和残疾的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Bianca Martins Lourenço ,&nbsp;Mariana Gabrich Moraes Campos ,&nbsp;Laísa Braga Maia ,&nbsp;Brenda Katrovyevysky Costa Castro ,&nbsp;Renato Guilherme Trede ,&nbsp;Vinicius Cunha Oliveira","doi":"10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.100656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions of the foot. Estimates of lifetime prevalence are up to 34.7% of the general population. Most of the time, PF is self-limited, but the time for complete resolution of symptoms can take up to a year, impairing the quality of life of patients. Non-pharmacological therapies are the first-choice management option for PF, such as biomechanical support, stretching, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy [ESWT]. In addition, other pharmacologic options are commonly prescribed (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], botulinum toxin, platelet-rich plasma injections, corticosteroid injections). However, there is no consensus on the decision-making process because they are limited in scope and methodology. Current evidence also needs to be updated with the aim of providing reliable evidence for the management of PF, taking into account that some new types of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are being investigated (e.g., orthoses, shoes).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies on pain and disability in PF.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: AMED, MEDLINE, PEDro, COCHRANE, SPORTDISCUSS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions until February 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2023. RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of any pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in comparison with control (placebo, sham, waiting list, or no intervention) on pain intensity and disability in people with PF were the eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently screened eligible studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Reviews (GRADE) grading framework.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen different therapies investigated in 28 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Moderate certainty evidence showed short-term effects of custom orthoses on pain intensity when compared with control (MD, -12.0 [95% CI: -17.1 to -7.0) and that orthoses did not reduce long-term pain intensity (MD, -5.9 [95% CI: -21.2 to 9.5]). Low-certainty evidence showed short-term effects in favor of taping (MD, -21.3 [95% CI: -38.6 to 4.0]) on pain intensity. For disability, low-certainty evidence showed that high-quality studies are needed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The results of this meta-analysis should be evaluated by clinicians, stakeholders, and researchers, taking into account that most investigated interventions currently have low or very low certainty. Our findings expose the need to develop new larger studies with high methodological quality. Clinical</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Current evidence supports customized orthoses and taping on short-term pain intensity when compared with controls with moderate and low certainty evidence, respectively. PROSPERO: (CRD42021224416).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49621,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy","volume":"28 ","pages":"Article 100656"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EFFICACY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AND NON-PHARMACOLOGICAL THERAPIES ON PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PLANTAR FASCIITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS\",\"authors\":\"Bianca Martins Lourenço ,&nbsp;Mariana Gabrich Moraes Campos ,&nbsp;Laísa Braga Maia ,&nbsp;Brenda Katrovyevysky Costa Castro ,&nbsp;Renato Guilherme Trede ,&nbsp;Vinicius Cunha Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.100656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions of the foot. Estimates of lifetime prevalence are up to 34.7% of the general population. Most of the time, PF is self-limited, but the time for complete resolution of symptoms can take up to a year, impairing the quality of life of patients. Non-pharmacological therapies are the first-choice management option for PF, such as biomechanical support, stretching, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy [ESWT]. In addition, other pharmacologic options are commonly prescribed (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], botulinum toxin, platelet-rich plasma injections, corticosteroid injections). However, there is no consensus on the decision-making process because they are limited in scope and methodology. Current evidence also needs to be updated with the aim of providing reliable evidence for the management of PF, taking into account that some new types of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are being investigated (e.g., orthoses, shoes).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies on pain and disability in PF.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: AMED, MEDLINE, PEDro, COCHRANE, SPORTDISCUSS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions until February 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2023. RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of any pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in comparison with control (placebo, sham, waiting list, or no intervention) on pain intensity and disability in people with PF were the eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently screened eligible studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Reviews (GRADE) grading framework.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen different therapies investigated in 28 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Moderate certainty evidence showed short-term effects of custom orthoses on pain intensity when compared with control (MD, -12.0 [95% CI: -17.1 to -7.0) and that orthoses did not reduce long-term pain intensity (MD, -5.9 [95% CI: -21.2 to 9.5]). Low-certainty evidence showed short-term effects in favor of taping (MD, -21.3 [95% CI: -38.6 to 4.0]) on pain intensity. For disability, low-certainty evidence showed that high-quality studies are needed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The results of this meta-analysis should be evaluated by clinicians, stakeholders, and researchers, taking into account that most investigated interventions currently have low or very low certainty. Our findings expose the need to develop new larger studies with high methodological quality. Clinical</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Current evidence supports customized orthoses and taping on short-term pain intensity when compared with controls with moderate and low certainty evidence, respectively. PROSPERO: (CRD42021224416).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\"28 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100656\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355524000674\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355524000674","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景足底筋膜炎(PF)是足部最常见的肌肉骨骼疾病之一。据估计,其终生患病率高达总人口的 34.7%。大多数情况下,足背痛是自限性的,但症状完全缓解可能需要长达一年的时间,从而影响患者的生活质量。非药物疗法是治疗 PF 的首选方案,如生物力学支持、拉伸和体外冲击波疗法 [ESWT]。此外,其他药物疗法也是常用的治疗方法(如非甾体抗炎药、肉毒杆菌毒素、富血小板血浆注射、皮质类固醇注射等)。然而,由于这些研究的范围和方法有限,因此在决策过程方面尚未达成共识。考虑到一些新型药物疗法和非药物疗法(如矫形器、鞋)正在接受研究,目前的证据也需要更新,以便为治疗 PF 提供可靠的证据。数据来源AMED、MEDLINE、PEDro、COCHRANE、SPORTDISCUSS、CINAHL、EMBASE 和 PsycINFO,无语言和日期限制,直至 2023 年 2 月 3 日。符合资格的标准是评估任何药物和非药物疗法与对照组(安慰剂、假、等待名单或无干预)相比对 PF 患者疼痛强度和残疾的疗效的 RCT。两名审稿人独立筛选符合条件的研究、提取数据、评估纳入研究的方法学质量,并使用建议、评估、发展和评论(GRADE)分级框架评估证据的确定性。结果28项研究中的17种不同疗法被纳入定量分析。中度确定性证据显示,与对照组相比,定制矫形器对疼痛强度有短期影响(MD,-12.0 [95% CI:-17.1 至 -7.0]),矫形器不会降低长期疼痛强度(MD,-5.9 [95% CI:-21.2 至 9.5])。低确定性证据显示,短期效果有利于绑带(MD,-21.3 [95% CI:-38.6 至 4.0])对疼痛强度的影响。结论临床医生、利益相关者和研究人员应评估本荟萃分析的结果,同时考虑到目前大多数调查干预措施的确定性较低或非常低。我们的研究结果表明,有必要开展新的、规模更大、方法质量更高的研究。临床启示目前有证据表明,与对照组相比,定制矫形器和绑带能减轻短期疼痛强度,但确定性证据分别为中度和低度。prospero:(CRD42021224416)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EFFICACY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AND NON-PHARMACOLOGICAL THERAPIES ON PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PLANTAR FASCIITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background

Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions of the foot. Estimates of lifetime prevalence are up to 34.7% of the general population. Most of the time, PF is self-limited, but the time for complete resolution of symptoms can take up to a year, impairing the quality of life of patients. Non-pharmacological therapies are the first-choice management option for PF, such as biomechanical support, stretching, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy [ESWT]. In addition, other pharmacologic options are commonly prescribed (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], botulinum toxin, platelet-rich plasma injections, corticosteroid injections). However, there is no consensus on the decision-making process because they are limited in scope and methodology. Current evidence also needs to be updated with the aim of providing reliable evidence for the management of PF, taking into account that some new types of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are being investigated (e.g., orthoses, shoes).

Objective

To investigate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies on pain and disability in PF.

Methods

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: AMED, MEDLINE, PEDro, COCHRANE, SPORTDISCUSS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions until February 3rd, 2023. RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of any pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in comparison with control (placebo, sham, waiting list, or no intervention) on pain intensity and disability in people with PF were the eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently screened eligible studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Reviews (GRADE) grading framework.

Results

Seventeen different therapies investigated in 28 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Moderate certainty evidence showed short-term effects of custom orthoses on pain intensity when compared with control (MD, -12.0 [95% CI: -17.1 to -7.0) and that orthoses did not reduce long-term pain intensity (MD, -5.9 [95% CI: -21.2 to 9.5]). Low-certainty evidence showed short-term effects in favor of taping (MD, -21.3 [95% CI: -38.6 to 4.0]) on pain intensity. For disability, low-certainty evidence showed that high-quality studies are needed.

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis should be evaluated by clinicians, stakeholders, and researchers, taking into account that most investigated interventions currently have low or very low certainty. Our findings expose the need to develop new larger studies with high methodological quality. Clinical

Implications

Current evidence supports customized orthoses and taping on short-term pain intensity when compared with controls with moderate and low certainty evidence, respectively. PROSPERO: (CRD42021224416).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
8.80%
发文量
53
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT) is the official publication of the Brazilian Society of Physical Therapy Research and Graduate Studies (ABRAPG-Ft). It publishes original research articles on topics related to the areas of physical therapy and rehabilitation sciences, including clinical, basic or applied studies on the assessment, prevention, and treatment of movement disorders.
×
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