肌腱病前驱治疗的最佳葡萄糖浓度:随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Anshory Sahlan, Yose Waluyo, Muthiah Nur Afifah, M Salas Al Aldi, Diah Nurul Islami Muchsin
{"title":"肌腱病前驱治疗的最佳葡萄糖浓度:随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Anshory Sahlan, Yose Waluyo, Muthiah Nur Afifah, M Salas Al Aldi, Diah Nurul Islami Muchsin","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2026.10.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of different dextrose concentrations used in prolotherapy for reducing pain in patients with tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to July 2025.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dextrose prolotherapy in tendinopathy were included; trials reporting 0-10 pain scores at 6-12 weeks against saline were eligible for network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2.0); certainty of evidence was rated with CINeMA.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A frequentist common-effect network meta-analysis estimated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) versus saline, interpreted against a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.4 points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs (490 participants) were included; six were at low risk of bias and three had some concerns. Three trials (111 participants) formed the network, each comparison being informed by a single trial. Compared with saline, 15% dextrose (MD -4.66; 95% CI -5.36 to -3.96) and 5% dextrose (MD -3.55; 95% CI -4.24 to -2.86) reduced pain beyond the MCID; both estimates came from one three-arm lateral epicondylitis trial, in which 15% exceeded 5% by 1.11 points (95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). Neither 20% dextrose (MD 0.26; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.74) nor 10.7% dextrose-morrhuate (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63) differed from saline. Heterogeneity and inconsistency could not be estimated, and certainty of evidence was low to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence on the optimal dextrose concentration for tendinopathy is limited. The apparent advantage of 5% and 15% dextrose rests on a single trial and may reflect differences in tendon site, injection schedule, and follow-up rather than concentration alone. Adequately powered trials directly comparing concentrations are needed before dosing recommendations can be made.</p>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal Dextrose Concentration for Prolotherapy in TendinopathyA Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Anshory Sahlan, Yose Waluyo, Muthiah Nur Afifah, M Salas Al Aldi, Diah Nurul Islami Muchsin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apmr.2026.10.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of different dextrose concentrations used in prolotherapy for reducing pain in patients with tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to July 2025.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dextrose prolotherapy in tendinopathy were included; trials reporting 0-10 pain scores at 6-12 weeks against saline were eligible for network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2.0); certainty of evidence was rated with CINeMA.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A frequentist common-effect network meta-analysis estimated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) versus saline, interpreted against a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.4 points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs (490 participants) were included; six were at low risk of bias and three had some concerns. Three trials (111 participants) formed the network, each comparison being informed by a single trial. Compared with saline, 15% dextrose (MD -4.66; 95% CI -5.36 to -3.96) and 5% dextrose (MD -3.55; 95% CI -4.24 to -2.86) reduced pain beyond the MCID; both estimates came from one three-arm lateral epicondylitis trial, in which 15% exceeded 5% by 1.11 points (95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). Neither 20% dextrose (MD 0.26; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.74) nor 10.7% dextrose-morrhuate (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63) differed from saline. Heterogeneity and inconsistency could not be estimated, and certainty of evidence was low to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence on the optimal dextrose concentration for tendinopathy is limited. The apparent advantage of 5% and 15% dextrose rests on a single trial and may reflect differences in tendon site, injection schedule, and follow-up rather than concentration alone. Adequately powered trials directly comparing concentrations are needed before dosing recommendations can be made.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2026.10.004\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2026.10.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal Dextrose Concentration for Prolotherapy in TendinopathyA Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different dextrose concentrations used in prolotherapy for reducing pain in patients with tendinopathy.

Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to July 2025.

Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dextrose prolotherapy in tendinopathy were included; trials reporting 0-10 pain scores at 6-12 weeks against saline were eligible for network meta-analysis.

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2.0); certainty of evidence was rated with CINeMA.

Data synthesis: A frequentist common-effect network meta-analysis estimated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) versus saline, interpreted against a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.4 points.

Results: Nine RCTs (490 participants) were included; six were at low risk of bias and three had some concerns. Three trials (111 participants) formed the network, each comparison being informed by a single trial. Compared with saline, 15% dextrose (MD -4.66; 95% CI -5.36 to -3.96) and 5% dextrose (MD -3.55; 95% CI -4.24 to -2.86) reduced pain beyond the MCID; both estimates came from one three-arm lateral epicondylitis trial, in which 15% exceeded 5% by 1.11 points (95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). Neither 20% dextrose (MD 0.26; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.74) nor 10.7% dextrose-morrhuate (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63) differed from saline. Heterogeneity and inconsistency could not be estimated, and certainty of evidence was low to very low.

Conclusions: Evidence on the optimal dextrose concentration for tendinopathy is limited. The apparent advantage of 5% and 15% dextrose rests on a single trial and may reflect differences in tendon site, injection schedule, and follow-up rather than concentration alone. Adequately powered trials directly comparing concentrations are needed before dosing recommendations can be made.

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
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
×
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
小红书