Szczepan Wiecha, Igor Cieśliński, Paweł Wiśniowski, Maciej Cieśliński, Wojciech Pawliczek, Paweł Posadzki, Robert Prill, Joanna Zając, Maciej Płaszewski
{"title":"迟发性肌肉酸痛的物理治疗:综合meta- meta分析的系统综述","authors":"Szczepan Wiecha, Igor Cieśliński, Paweł Wiśniowski, Maciej Cieśliński, Wojciech Pawliczek, Paweł Posadzki, Robert Prill, Joanna Zając, Maciej Płaszewski","doi":"10.1007/s40279-025-02187-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Delayed-onset muscle soreness commonly arises from intense and unaccustomed physical exercise, leading to reduced muscle strength, increased pain and inflammation. A number of systematic reviews evaluating physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness have been published since the 1990s. However, these systematic reviews frequently yield conflicting findings, further impeding clinical practice.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>The primary aim of this study was to summarise the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions in alleviating delayed-onset muscle soreness through an umbrella review. Additionally, we evaluated the risk of bias in systematic reviews, synthesised their findings, and categorised the evidence strength to provide practical insights for clinicians and researchers.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>An umbrella review with a meta-meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro and Epistemonikos were searched from 1998 to February 2024. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of any treatments used post-exercise by physiotherapists to reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness in healthy adults, regardless of their physical activity, were eligible. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Corrected covered areas were calculated to address the overlap of primary trials in the included systematic reviews. An evidence map was created to categorise and visualise the effects of interventions using a multi-dimensional approach, based on the effect size and strength of evidence (Class I–V), i.e. the number of cases, Hedges’ <i>g</i>, <i>p</i>-value, heterogeneity, Egger’s test and excess of significance bias test.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine systematic reviews with 863 unique randomised controlled trials, addressing 24 distinct physiotherapeutic treatments, met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen systematic reviews were of critically low methodological quality, with only two rated as high quality. The evidence map suggests significant effects in pain reduction immediately post-exercise for contrast therapy (Class II), cooling therapy and cryostimulation (Class IV); 24 h: massage therapy (Class III) and cooling therapy, contrast therapy, electrical stimulation, cryostimulation, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 48 h: compression, contrast therapy, kinesiotaping and cryostimulation (Class III) and cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 72 h: kinesiotaping (Class III) and contrast therapy, cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, vibration (Class IV); 96 h: compression, phototherapy, and contrast therapy (Class IV). The effect sizes (Hedges’ <i>g</i>) ranged from 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for cooling therapy to 1.82 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for heat therapy indicating small and large effects, respectively.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>There is a large body of evidence from predominantly low-quality systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness. There is some strong evidence to support the effectiveness of cooling therapy, cryostimulation, contrast therapy, massage, phototherapy and kinesiotaping at various follow-up intervals, whereas evidence for stretching, exercises and electrical stimulation is weak. Uncertainties, heterogeneity and weaknesses of the available evidence partially limit the applicability and generalisability of the findings.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Clinical Trial Registration</h3><p>PROSPERO registration number CRD42024485501 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024485501).</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physical Therapies for Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness: An Umbrella and Mapping Systematic Review with Meta-meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Szczepan Wiecha, Igor Cieśliński, Paweł Wiśniowski, Maciej Cieśliński, Wojciech Pawliczek, Paweł Posadzki, Robert Prill, Joanna Zając, Maciej Płaszewski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40279-025-02187-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Delayed-onset muscle soreness commonly arises from intense and unaccustomed physical exercise, leading to reduced muscle strength, increased pain and inflammation. A number of systematic reviews evaluating physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness have been published since the 1990s. However, these systematic reviews frequently yield conflicting findings, further impeding clinical practice.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>The primary aim of this study was to summarise the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions in alleviating delayed-onset muscle soreness through an umbrella review. Additionally, we evaluated the risk of bias in systematic reviews, synthesised their findings, and categorised the evidence strength to provide practical insights for clinicians and researchers.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>An umbrella review with a meta-meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro and Epistemonikos were searched from 1998 to February 2024. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of any treatments used post-exercise by physiotherapists to reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness in healthy adults, regardless of their physical activity, were eligible. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Corrected covered areas were calculated to address the overlap of primary trials in the included systematic reviews. An evidence map was created to categorise and visualise the effects of interventions using a multi-dimensional approach, based on the effect size and strength of evidence (Class I–V), i.e. the number of cases, Hedges’ <i>g</i>, <i>p</i>-value, heterogeneity, Egger’s test and excess of significance bias test.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine systematic reviews with 863 unique randomised controlled trials, addressing 24 distinct physiotherapeutic treatments, met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen systematic reviews were of critically low methodological quality, with only two rated as high quality. The evidence map suggests significant effects in pain reduction immediately post-exercise for contrast therapy (Class II), cooling therapy and cryostimulation (Class IV); 24 h: massage therapy (Class III) and cooling therapy, contrast therapy, electrical stimulation, cryostimulation, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 48 h: compression, contrast therapy, kinesiotaping and cryostimulation (Class III) and cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 72 h: kinesiotaping (Class III) and contrast therapy, cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, vibration (Class IV); 96 h: compression, phototherapy, and contrast therapy (Class IV). The effect sizes (Hedges’ <i>g</i>) ranged from 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for cooling therapy to 1.82 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for heat therapy indicating small and large effects, respectively.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>There is a large body of evidence from predominantly low-quality systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness. There is some strong evidence to support the effectiveness of cooling therapy, cryostimulation, contrast therapy, massage, phototherapy and kinesiotaping at various follow-up intervals, whereas evidence for stretching, exercises and electrical stimulation is weak. Uncertainties, heterogeneity and weaknesses of the available evidence partially limit the applicability and generalisability of the findings.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Clinical Trial Registration</h3><p>PROSPERO registration number CRD42024485501 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024485501).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02187-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02187-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:迟发性肌肉酸痛通常由高强度和不习惯的体育锻炼引起,导致肌肉力量下降,疼痛和炎症增加。自20世纪90年代以来,已经发表了许多评估延迟性肌肉酸痛的物理治疗的系统综述。然而,这些系统综述经常产生相互矛盾的发现,进一步阻碍了临床实践。目的:本研究的主要目的是总结物理治疗干预在缓解迟发性肌肉酸痛方面的有效性。此外,我们评估了系统综述的偏倚风险,综合了他们的发现,并对证据强度进行了分类,为临床医生和研究人员提供了实用的见解。方法进行一项综合综述,并进行meta-meta分析。检索自1998年至2024年2月的MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews、CINAHL、PEDro和Epistemonikos。对物理治疗师在运动后使用任何治疗方法来减少健康成年人迟发性肌肉酸痛的随机对照试验进行系统评价,无论他们的身体活动如何。评估系统评价的测量工具-2 (AMSTAR-2)用于评估纳入的系统评价的方法学质量。计算校正后的覆盖区域,以解决纳入的系统评价中主要试验的重叠问题。根据效应大小和证据强度(I-V类),即病例数、Hedges ' g、p值、异质性、Egger检验和显著性偏差检验,创建了一个证据图,使用多维方法对干预措施的效果进行分类和可视化。结果29项系统评价,863项独特的随机对照试验,涉及24种不同的物理治疗方法,符合纳入标准。17项系统评价的方法学质量极低,只有2项评价为高质量。证据图显示,对比疗法(II类)、冷却疗法和冷冻刺激(IV类)在运动后立即减轻疼痛有显著效果;24小时:按摩疗法(III类)和冷却疗法、对比疗法、电刺激、冷冻刺激、光疗、热疗法(IV类);48小时:压缩、对比疗法、运动胶带和冷冻刺激(III类)和冷却疗法、按摩、光疗、热疗法(IV类);72小时:运动磁带(III类)和对比疗法、冷却疗法、按摩、光疗、振动(IV类);96小时:压缩、光疗和对比疗法(IV类)。效应大小(Hedges’g)范围从冷却疗法的0.36(95%可信区间0.46,3.18)到热疗法的1.82(95%可信区间0.46,3.18),分别表明小效果和大效果。结论:有大量的证据主要来自低质量的随机对照试验的系统评价,以评估物理治疗对延迟性肌肉酸痛的有效性。有一些强有力的证据支持冷却疗法、冷冻刺激、对比疗法、按摩、光疗和运动胶带在不同随访间隔内的有效性,而拉伸、锻炼和电刺激的证据则很弱。现有证据的不确定性、异质性和薄弱部分限制了研究结果的适用性和普遍性。临床试验注册号prospero注册号CRD42024485501 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024485501)。
Physical Therapies for Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness: An Umbrella and Mapping Systematic Review with Meta-meta-analysis
Background
Delayed-onset muscle soreness commonly arises from intense and unaccustomed physical exercise, leading to reduced muscle strength, increased pain and inflammation. A number of systematic reviews evaluating physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness have been published since the 1990s. However, these systematic reviews frequently yield conflicting findings, further impeding clinical practice.
Objectives
The primary aim of this study was to summarise the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions in alleviating delayed-onset muscle soreness through an umbrella review. Additionally, we evaluated the risk of bias in systematic reviews, synthesised their findings, and categorised the evidence strength to provide practical insights for clinicians and researchers.
Methods
An umbrella review with a meta-meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro and Epistemonikos were searched from 1998 to February 2024. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of any treatments used post-exercise by physiotherapists to reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness in healthy adults, regardless of their physical activity, were eligible. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Corrected covered areas were calculated to address the overlap of primary trials in the included systematic reviews. An evidence map was created to categorise and visualise the effects of interventions using a multi-dimensional approach, based on the effect size and strength of evidence (Class I–V), i.e. the number of cases, Hedges’ g, p-value, heterogeneity, Egger’s test and excess of significance bias test.
Results
Twenty-nine systematic reviews with 863 unique randomised controlled trials, addressing 24 distinct physiotherapeutic treatments, met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen systematic reviews were of critically low methodological quality, with only two rated as high quality. The evidence map suggests significant effects in pain reduction immediately post-exercise for contrast therapy (Class II), cooling therapy and cryostimulation (Class IV); 24 h: massage therapy (Class III) and cooling therapy, contrast therapy, electrical stimulation, cryostimulation, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 48 h: compression, contrast therapy, kinesiotaping and cryostimulation (Class III) and cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, heat therapy (Class IV); 72 h: kinesiotaping (Class III) and contrast therapy, cooling therapy, massage, phototherapy, vibration (Class IV); 96 h: compression, phototherapy, and contrast therapy (Class IV). The effect sizes (Hedges’ g) ranged from 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for cooling therapy to 1.82 (95% confidence interval 0.46, 3.18) for heat therapy indicating small and large effects, respectively.
Conclusions
There is a large body of evidence from predominantly low-quality systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic treatments for delayed-onset muscle soreness. There is some strong evidence to support the effectiveness of cooling therapy, cryostimulation, contrast therapy, massage, phototherapy and kinesiotaping at various follow-up intervals, whereas evidence for stretching, exercises and electrical stimulation is weak. Uncertainties, heterogeneity and weaknesses of the available evidence partially limit the applicability and generalisability of the findings.
Clinical Trial Registration
PROSPERO registration number CRD42024485501 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024485501).
期刊介绍:
Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports.
Types of Articles:
Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings.
Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field.
Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles.
Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content.
Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances.
Peer Review Process:
All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.