Logan J Rodgers, Joel E Bialosky, Sophie A Minick, Rogelio A Coronado
{"title":"An overview of systematic reviews examining the quantitative sensory testing-derived hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain.","authors":"Logan J Rodgers, Joel E Bialosky, Sophie A Minick, Rogelio A Coronado","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2023.2267954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) after manual therapy can provide insight into pain relief mechanisms. Prior systematic reviews have evaluated manual-therapy-induced QST change. This overview of systematic reviews aims to consolidate this body of literature and critically review evidence on the hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy in clinical populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were eligible if the reviews examined the effect of manual therapy compared to non-manual therapy interventions on QST outcomes in clinical populations. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Meta-analysis results and qualitative (non-meta-analysis) interpretations were summarized by type of manual therapy. Overlap of studies was examined with the corrected covered area (CCA) index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, met inclusion. There was a slight overlap in studies (CCA of 1.72% for all reviews and 1.69% for meta-analyses). Methodological quality was predominantly low to critically low. Eight (27%) reviews examined studies with a range of manual therapy types, 13 (43%) reviews focused on joint-biased manual therapy, 7 (23%) reviews focused on muscle-biased manual therapy, and 2 (7%) reviews focused on nerve-biased manual therapy. Twenty-nine (97%) reviews reported on pressure pain threshold (PPT). Meta-analytic results demonstrated conflicting evidence that manual therapy results in greater hypoalgesic effects compared to other interventions or controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our overview of QST effects, which has relevance to mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia, shows conflicting evidence from mostly low to critically low systematic reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"67-84"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10795637/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2023.2267954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) after manual therapy can provide insight into pain relief mechanisms. Prior systematic reviews have evaluated manual-therapy-induced QST change. This overview of systematic reviews aims to consolidate this body of literature and critically review evidence on the hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy in clinical populations.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were eligible if the reviews examined the effect of manual therapy compared to non-manual therapy interventions on QST outcomes in clinical populations. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Meta-analysis results and qualitative (non-meta-analysis) interpretations were summarized by type of manual therapy. Overlap of studies was examined with the corrected covered area (CCA) index.
Results: Thirty systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, met inclusion. There was a slight overlap in studies (CCA of 1.72% for all reviews and 1.69% for meta-analyses). Methodological quality was predominantly low to critically low. Eight (27%) reviews examined studies with a range of manual therapy types, 13 (43%) reviews focused on joint-biased manual therapy, 7 (23%) reviews focused on muscle-biased manual therapy, and 2 (7%) reviews focused on nerve-biased manual therapy. Twenty-nine (97%) reviews reported on pressure pain threshold (PPT). Meta-analytic results demonstrated conflicting evidence that manual therapy results in greater hypoalgesic effects compared to other interventions or controls.
Conclusion: Our overview of QST effects, which has relevance to mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia, shows conflicting evidence from mostly low to critically low systematic reviews.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
