Dataset Information

Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health solutions can provide populations with musculoskeletal pain with high-reach, low-cost, easily accessible, and scalable patient education and self-management interventions that meet the time and resource restrictions.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions (ie, low back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, elbow pain, ankle pain, and whiplash).

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from 1974 to August 2021) and selected randomized controlled trials of digital health interventions in the target population of patients with musculoskeletal pain with a minimum follow-up of 1 month. A total of 2 researchers independently screened and extracted the data.

Results

A total of 56 eligible studies were included covering 9359 participants, with a mean follow-up of 25 (SD 15.48) weeks. In moderate-quality evidence, digital health interventions had a small effect on pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.32), disability (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.25), quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.36), emotional functioning (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.12-0.35), and self-management (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.24).

Conclusions

Moderate-quality evidence supports the conclusion that digital health interventions are effective in reducing pain and improving functioning and self-management of musculoskeletal pain conditions. Low-quality evidence indicates that digital health interventions can improve the quality of life and global treatment. Little research has been conducted on the influence of digital health on expenses, knowledge, overall improvement, range of motion, muscle strength, and implementation fidelity.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42022307504; https://tinyurl.com/2cd25hus.

SUBMITTER: Valentijn PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9490534 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Valentijn Pim Peter PP Tymchenko Liza L Jacobson Teddy T Kromann Jakob J Biermann Claus W CW AlMoslemany Mohamed Atef MA Arends Rosa Ymkje RY

Journal of medical Internet research 20220906 9

<h4>Background</h4>Digital health solutions can provide populations with musculoskeletal pain with high-reach, low-cost, easily accessible, and scalable patient education and self-management interventions that meet the time and resource restrictions.<h4>Objective</h4>The main objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions (ie, low back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, elbow pain, ankle pain, and ...[more]

PMID: 36066943

Similar Datasets

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Project description:BackgroundAs digital mental health delivery becomes increasingly prominent, a solid evidence base regarding its efficacy is needed.ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize evidence on the comparative efficacy of systemic psychotherapy interventions provided via digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities.MethodsWe followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX and conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials comparing mental, behavioral, and somatic outcomes of systemic psychotherapy interventions using self- and therapist-guided digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials. Where appropriate, we calculated standardized mean differences and risk ratios. We calculated separate mean differences for nonaggregated analysis.ResultsWe screened 3633 references and included 12 articles reporting on 4 trials (N=754). Participants were youths with poor diabetic control, traumatic brain injuries, increased risk behavior likelihood, and parents of youths with anorexia nervosa. A total of 56 outcomes were identified. Two trials provided digital intervention delivery via videoconferencing: one via an interactive graphic interface and one via a web-based program. In total, 23% (14/60) of risk of bias judgments were high risk, 42% (25/60) were some concerns, and 35% (21/60) were low risk. Due to heterogeneity in the data, meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate for 96% (54/56) of outcomes, which were interpreted qualitatively instead. Nonaggregated analyses of mean differences and CIs between delivery modalities yielded mixed results, with superiority of the digital delivery modality for 18% (10/56) of outcomes, superiority of the face-to-face delivery modality for 5% (3/56) of outcomes, equivalence between delivery modalities for 2% (1/56) of outcomes, and neither superiority of one modality nor equivalence between modalities for 75% (42/56) of outcomes. Consequently, for most outcome measures, no indication of superiority or equivalence regarding the relative efficacy of either delivery modality can be made at this stage. We further meta-analytically compared digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities for attrition (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.52-2.03; P=.93) and number of sessions attended (standardized mean difference -0.11; 95% CI -1.13 to -0.91; P=.83), finding no significant differences between modalities, while CIs falling outside the range of the minimal important difference indicate that equivalence cannot be determined at this stage.ConclusionsEvidence on digital and face-to-face modalities for systemic psychotherapy interventions is largely heterogeneous, limiting conclusions regarding the differential efficacy of digital and face-to-face delivery. Nonaggregated and meta-analytic analyses did not indicate the superiority of either delivery condition. More research is needed to conclude if digital and face-to-face delivery modalities are generally equivalent or if-and in which contexts-one modality is superior to another.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022335013; https://tinyurl.com/nprder8h.

Project description:Both cupping therapy and acupuncture have been used in China for a long time, and their target indications are pain-related conditions. There is no systematic review comparing the effectiveness of these two therapies.To compare the beneficial effectiveness and safety between cupping therapy and acupuncture for pain-related conditions to provide evidence for clinical practice.Protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016050986). We conducted literature search from six electronic databases until 31st March 2017. We included randomized trials comparing cupping therapy with acupuncture on pain-related conditions. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by risk of bias tool. Mean difference, risk ratio, risk difference and their 95% confidence interval were used to report the estimate effect of the pooled results through meta-analysis or the results from each individual study. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was applied to adjust random errors and calculate the sample size.Twenty-three randomized trials with 2845 participants were included covering 12 pain-related conditions. All included studies were of poor methodological quality. Three meta-analyses were conducted, which showed similar clinical beneficial effects of cupping therapy and acupuncture for the rate of symptom improvement in cervical spondylosis (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; n = 646), lateral femoral cutaneous neuritis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; n = 102) and scapulohumeral periarthritis (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.51; n = 208). Results from other outcomes (such as visual analogue and numerical rating scale) in each study also showed no statistical significant difference between these two therapies for all included pain-related conditions. The results of TSA for cervical spondylosis demonstrated that the current available data have not reached a powerful conclusion. No serious adverse events related to cupping therapy or acupuncture was found in included studies.Cupping therapy and acupuncture are potentially safe, and they have similar effectiveness in relieving pain. However, further rigorous studies investigating relevant pain-related conditions are warranted to establish comparative effectiveness analysis between these two therapies. Cost-effectiveness studies should be considered in the future studies to establish evidence for decision-making in clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the effect of digital health interventions compared with treatment as usual on preventing and treating postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety.Data sourcesSearches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.Study eligibility requirementsThe systematic review included full-text randomized controlled trials comparing digital health interventions with treatment as usual for preventing or treating postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsTwo authors independently screened all abstracts for eligibility and independently reviewed all potentially eligible full-text articles for inclusion. A third author screened abstracts and full-text articles as needed to determine eligibility in cases of discrepancy. The primary outcome was the score on the first ascertainment of postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety symptoms after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included screening positive for postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety --as defined in the primary study --and loss to follow-up, defined as the proportion of participants who completed the final study assessment compared with the number of initially randomized participants. For continuous outcomes, the Hedges method was used to obtain standardized mean differences when the studies used different psychometric scales, and weighted mean differences were calculated when studies used the same psychometric scales. For categorical outcomes, pooled relative risks were estimated.ResultsOf 921 studies originally identified, 31 randomized controlled trials-corresponding to 5532 participants randomized to digital health intervention and 5492 participants randomized to treatment as usual-were included. Compared with treatment as usual, digital health interventions significantly reduced mean scores ascertaining postpartum depression symptoms (29 studies: standardized mean difference, -0.64 [95% confidence interval, -0.88 to -0.40]; I2=94.4%) and postpartum anxiety symptoms (17 studies: standardized mean difference, -0.49 [95% confidence interval, -0.72 to -0.25]; I2=84.6%). In the few studies that assessed screen-positive rates for postpartum depression (n=4) or postpartum anxiety (n=1), there were no significant differences between those randomized to digital health intervention and treatment as usual. Overall, those randomized to digital health intervention had 38% increased risk of not completing the final study assessment compared with those randomized to treatment as usual (pooled relative risk, 1.38 [95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.62]), but those randomized to app-based digital health intervention had similar loss-to-follow-up rates as those randomized to treatment as usual (relative risk, 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.19]).ConclusionDigital health interventions modestly, but significantly, reduced scores assessing postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety symptoms. More research is needed to identify digital health interventions that effectively prevent or treat postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety but encourage ongoing engagement throughout the study period.

Dataset Information

Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets