3.9 Review

A systematic literature review on the effectiveness of non-invasive therapy for cervicobrachial pain

期刊

MANUAL THERAPY
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 53-65

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2010.09.005

关键词

Cervicobrachial; Cervical radiculopathy; Systematic review; Physiotherapy

资金

  1. Physiotherapy Department at Queen's Hospital, Burton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cervicobrachial pain is a common cervical spine disorder. It is frequently managed through non-invasive therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to assess effectiveness of non-invasive therapy for the management of cervicobrachial pain, in terms of pain, function and disability. Computerised searches were performed to January 2010. Studies were selected using pre-specified criteria. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using PEDro and level of inter-reviewer agreement reported using Kappa values. Meta-analyses were conducted on pain scores for similar interventions using DerSimonian Laird random-effects model to allow for heterogeneity. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Qualitative analyses, based on Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence, were conducted for function and disability. Eleven studies were included in the review. Interventions included general physiotherapy, cervical traction, manual therapy, exercise therapy, and behavioural change approaches. There was inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of non-invasive management of cervicobrachial pain. Potential benefits were indicated in the provision of manual therapy and exercise and behavioural change approaches to reduce pain. General physiotherapy and traction were no more effective than comparators in reducing pain (level A evidence). Effects of non-invasive management on function and disability were mixed. Future studies should identify which sub-groups of cervicobrachial pain respond to specific interventions. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据