慢性疼痛患者的疼痛严重程度、功能改善和恢复工作的整骨疗法手工治疗。

IF 1.1
Yasir Rehman, Hannah Ferguson, Adelina Bozek, Joshua Blair, Ashley Allison, Robert Johnston
{"title":"慢性疼痛患者的疼痛严重程度、功能改善和恢复工作的整骨疗法手工治疗。","authors":"Yasir Rehman,&nbsp;Hannah Ferguson,&nbsp;Adelina Bozek,&nbsp;Joshua Blair,&nbsp;Ashley Allison,&nbsp;Robert Johnston","doi":"10.7556/jaoa.2020.128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is associated with disability, poor quality of life (QOL), and failure to return to work (RTW). Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or osteopathic manual therapy (OMTh) are increasingly offered to patients with CNCP; however, the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the literature that explore the effectiveness of OMTh have major limitations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically evaluate the quality of evidence documenting the effectiveness of OMTh for patients with CNCP using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and to evaluate the efficacy of OMTh in patients with CNCP through a meta-analysis of pooled data from previous studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched online the databases Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, OSTMED.DR, EMCare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as the bibliographic references of previous systematic review articles evaluating OMTh for pain severity, disability, QOL, or RTW outcomes. Eligibility included randomized controlled trials methodology, CNCP patients 18 years or older, use of previously validated assessment tools, use of OMTh as an active or combination intervention, and presence of a control or comparison group. We pooled studies based on the homogeneity between OMT comparator treatment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was determined with GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n=1158 patients) were eligible for data extraction. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh vs. standard care was significantly associated with a reduction in pain [standardized mean difference (95% CI)=[-.37 (-.58, -.17)] and disability [-.28 (-.46, -.10)], as well as improved QOL [.67 (.29, 1.05)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh plus exercise vs. exercise only was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-1.25 (-1.67, -.83)] and disability [-1.15 (-1.57, -.74)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that using visceral OMTh vs. general OMTh was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-.74 (-1.09, -.39)] and disability [-.52 (-.91, -.13)]. In comparison to physiotherapy, gabapentin, and OMTh plus gabapentin, OMTh did not show any significant effect for any of the outcomes. OMTh vs. standard care did not show significant improvement in RTW at 12 weeks, although the effect was significant at 8 weeks after OMTh.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Moderate quality evidence suggests that OMTh is effective for CNCP patients. There was a significant association between visceral OMTh and reduced pain severity and disability. More robust, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to further explore the effectiveness of the OMTh in the management of CNCP.</p>","PeriodicalId":47816,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7556/jaoa.2020.128","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Osteopathic Manual Treatment for Pain Severity, Functional Improvement, and Return to Work in Patients With Chronic Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Yasir Rehman,&nbsp;Hannah Ferguson,&nbsp;Adelina Bozek,&nbsp;Joshua Blair,&nbsp;Ashley Allison,&nbsp;Robert Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.7556/jaoa.2020.128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is associated with disability, poor quality of life (QOL), and failure to return to work (RTW). Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or osteopathic manual therapy (OMTh) are increasingly offered to patients with CNCP; however, the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the literature that explore the effectiveness of OMTh have major limitations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically evaluate the quality of evidence documenting the effectiveness of OMTh for patients with CNCP using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and to evaluate the efficacy of OMTh in patients with CNCP through a meta-analysis of pooled data from previous studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched online the databases Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, OSTMED.DR, EMCare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as the bibliographic references of previous systematic review articles evaluating OMTh for pain severity, disability, QOL, or RTW outcomes. Eligibility included randomized controlled trials methodology, CNCP patients 18 years or older, use of previously validated assessment tools, use of OMTh as an active or combination intervention, and presence of a control or comparison group. We pooled studies based on the homogeneity between OMT comparator treatment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was determined with GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n=1158 patients) were eligible for data extraction. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh vs. standard care was significantly associated with a reduction in pain [standardized mean difference (95% CI)=[-.37 (-.58, -.17)] and disability [-.28 (-.46, -.10)], as well as improved QOL [.67 (.29, 1.05)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh plus exercise vs. exercise only was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-1.25 (-1.67, -.83)] and disability [-1.15 (-1.57, -.74)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that using visceral OMTh vs. general OMTh was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-.74 (-1.09, -.39)] and disability [-.52 (-.91, -.13)]. In comparison to physiotherapy, gabapentin, and OMTh plus gabapentin, OMTh did not show any significant effect for any of the outcomes. OMTh vs. standard care did not show significant improvement in RTW at 12 weeks, although the effect was significant at 8 weeks after OMTh.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Moderate quality evidence suggests that OMTh is effective for CNCP patients. There was a significant association between visceral OMTh and reduced pain severity and disability. More robust, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to further explore the effectiveness of the OMTh in the management of CNCP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7556/jaoa.2020.128\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:慢性非癌性疼痛(CNCP)与残疾、生活质量差(QOL)和无法重返工作岗位(RTW)有关。骨疗法手法治疗(OMT)或骨疗法手工治疗(OMTh)越来越多地提供给CNCP患者;然而,现有的系统综述和文献荟萃分析在探索OMTh的有效性方面存在很大的局限性。目的:采用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法系统评价OMTh对CNCP患者疗效的证据质量,并通过对既往研究汇总数据的荟萃分析评估OMTh对CNCP患者的疗效。方法:在线检索Ovid、MEDLINE、Embase、OSTMED数据库。DR、EMCare、联合和补充医学数据库(AMED)、物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)和Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(Central),以及先前评估OMTh疼痛严重程度、残疾、生活质量或RTW结果的系统综述文章的参考书目。入选条件包括随机对照试验方法、18岁或以上的CNCP患者、使用先前验证的评估工具、使用OMTh作为主动或联合干预,以及存在对照组或对照组。我们根据OMT比较治疗和结果的同质性对研究进行了汇总。用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,用GRADE评价证据质量。结果:16项随机对照试验(n=1158例)符合资料提取条件。中等质量的证据表明,与标准护理相比,OMTh与疼痛的减轻显著相关[标准化平均差(95% CI)= - 0.37](-。[- 0.28]和残疾[- 0.28](-。46, - 0.10)],以及改善的生活质量[.67](.29日,1.05)]。中等质量的证据表明,OMTh加运动与仅运动与疼痛严重程度的减轻[-1.25(-1.67,- 0.83)]和残疾的减轻[-1.15(-1.57,- 0.74)]显著相关。中等质量的证据显示,使用内脏OMTh与普通OMTh相比,与疼痛严重程度的减轻显著相关[- 0.74][-1.09, - 0.39]和残疾[- 0.52](-。91年,13)]。与物理治疗、加巴喷丁和OMTh +加巴喷丁相比,OMTh对任何结果都没有显着影响。在12周时,OMTh与标准治疗相比,RTW没有明显改善,尽管在OMTh后8周时效果显著。结论:中等质量证据提示OMTh对CNCP患者有效。内脏OMTh与减轻疼痛严重程度和残疾之间存在显著关联。需要更大样本量、更可靠、高质量的随机对照试验来进一步探索OMTh在CNCP治疗中的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Osteopathic Manual Treatment for Pain Severity, Functional Improvement, and Return to Work in Patients With Chronic Pain.

Context: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is associated with disability, poor quality of life (QOL), and failure to return to work (RTW). Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or osteopathic manual therapy (OMTh) are increasingly offered to patients with CNCP; however, the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the literature that explore the effectiveness of OMTh have major limitations.

Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of evidence documenting the effectiveness of OMTh for patients with CNCP using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and to evaluate the efficacy of OMTh in patients with CNCP through a meta-analysis of pooled data from previous studies.

Methods: We searched online the databases Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, OSTMED.DR, EMCare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as the bibliographic references of previous systematic review articles evaluating OMTh for pain severity, disability, QOL, or RTW outcomes. Eligibility included randomized controlled trials methodology, CNCP patients 18 years or older, use of previously validated assessment tools, use of OMTh as an active or combination intervention, and presence of a control or comparison group. We pooled studies based on the homogeneity between OMT comparator treatment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was determined with GRADE.

Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n=1158 patients) were eligible for data extraction. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh vs. standard care was significantly associated with a reduction in pain [standardized mean difference (95% CI)=[-.37 (-.58, -.17)] and disability [-.28 (-.46, -.10)], as well as improved QOL [.67 (.29, 1.05)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that OMTh plus exercise vs. exercise only was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-1.25 (-1.67, -.83)] and disability [-1.15 (-1.57, -.74)]. Moderate quality evidence showed that using visceral OMTh vs. general OMTh was significantly associated with reduction in pain severity [-.74 (-1.09, -.39)] and disability [-.52 (-.91, -.13)]. In comparison to physiotherapy, gabapentin, and OMTh plus gabapentin, OMTh did not show any significant effect for any of the outcomes. OMTh vs. standard care did not show significant improvement in RTW at 12 weeks, although the effect was significant at 8 weeks after OMTh.

Conclusion: Moderate quality evidence suggests that OMTh is effective for CNCP patients. There was a significant association between visceral OMTh and reduced pain severity and disability. More robust, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to further explore the effectiveness of the OMTh in the management of CNCP.

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
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association is the official scientific publication of the American Osteopathic Association, as well as the premier scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of the osteopathic medical profession. The JAOA"s mission is to advance medicine through the scholarly publication of peer-reviewed osteopathic medical research. The JAOA"s goals are: 1. To be the authoritative scholarly publication of the osteopathic medical profession 2. To advance the traditional tenets of osteopathic medicine while encouraging the development of emerging concepts relevant to the profession"s distinctiveness
×
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