4.2 Review

Effectiveness of manual therapy in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 38, Issue 13, Pages 2368-2377

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2021.1926026

Keywords

Carpometacarpal osteoarthritis; manual therapy; functional outcomes; randomized controlled trial; meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Manual Therapy shows some short-term effectiveness in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis, but these differences are not clinically important.
Background: The effectiveness of Manual Therapy (MT) in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (OA) is unclear.Objective: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of MT for functional outcomes in patients with thumb carpometacarpal OA. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Methods: An electronic search was performed in the Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, Cinahl, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies included randomized clinical trials that compared MT versus other interventions in functional outcomes, such as thumb and/or hand function questionnaires, pinch and/or grip strength, thumb and/or hand range of motion, and pain intensity or pressure pain threshold in patients with thumb carpometacarpal OA. Results: Five clinical trials met the eligibility criteria; for the quantitative synthesis, four studies were included. The mean difference (MD) for grip strength was 0.87kg (95% CI = 0.29-1.44, p = .003), for pinch strength was 0.10kg (95% CI = -0.01-0.20, p = .06), and for the pressure pain threshold was 0.64kg/cm(2) (95% CI = 0.07-1.20, p = .03). All differences were in favor of the MT group. Conclusions: In the short-term, there was moderate to high evidence, with statistically significant differences in the functional outcomes, in favor of MT versus sham interventions in patients with thumb carpometacarpal OA. However, these differences are not clinically important.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available