Biomedical subjects

V Welch

Publications and source records attributed to V Welch.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 20 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the registry of the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies field and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were included, with 184 patients randomized to laser, 161 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 12 weeks. Pain was assessed by four trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) of three trials showed no effect on pain measured using a scale (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI: -1.0, +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p>0,05). Three of the trials showed no effect and two demonstrated very beneficial effects with laser. In another trial, with no scale-based pain outcome, significantly more patients reported pain relief (yes/no) with laser with an odds ratio of 0.05, (95% CI: 0.0 to 1.56). Only one study found significant results for increased knee range of motion (WMD: -10.62 degrees, 95% CI: -14.07,-7.17). Other outcomes of joint tenderness and strength were not significant. Lower dosage of LLLT was found as effective than higher dosage for reducing pain and improving knee range of motion. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Hand↗

PubMed2001

Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in osteoarthritis (OA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Current Contents up to November 1999, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo based and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double-blinded studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1995) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Collectively, the 16 identified RCTs provided evidence that glucosamine is both effective and safe in OA. In the 13 RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior in all RCTs, except one. In the four RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to confirm the long term effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine therapy in OA. Most of the trials reviewed only evaluated the Rotta preparation of glucosamine sulfate. It is not known whether different glucosamine preparations prepared by different manufacturers are equally effective in the therapy of OA.

Double-Blind Method↗

PubMed2001

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) affects a large proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an alternative therapy to pharmacological treatments for chronic pain. However, despite its widespread use, the effectiveness of TENS is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment of chronic LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to June 1, 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled clinical trials of TENS for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic LBP were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 170 subjects randomized to the placebo group receiving sham-TENS and 251 subjects receiving active TENS (153 for conventional mode, 98 for acupuncture-like TENS). The schedule of treatments varied greatly between studies ranging from one treatment/day for two consecutive days, to three treatments/day for four weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the active TENS group when compared to the placebo TENS group for any outcome measures. Subgroup analysis performed on TENS application and methodological quality did not demonstrate a significant statistical difference. Remaining pre-planned subgroup analysis was not conducted due to the small number of included trials and the variety of outcome measures reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis present no evidence to support the use of TENS in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the TENS device and the application techniques used. New trials on TENS should make use of standardized outcome measures. This meta-analysis lacked data on how TENS effectiveness is affected by four important factors: type of applications, site of application, treatment duration of TENS, optimal frequencies and intensities.

Chronic Disease↗

PubMed2001

Therapeutic ultrasound for osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic ultrasound is one of several physical therapy modalities suggested for the management of pain and loss of function due to OA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound therapy for treating OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and MEDLINE, up to the end of December 2000, using the sensitive search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing therapeutic ultrasound against placebo or another active intervention in patients with OA were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (LB, VW). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (VW, LB), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed adapted form for the OA sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale, assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs independently. OA outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) for joint counts, pain, global and functional assessments. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials, including 294 patients with knee OA were included. Only one trial (n=74) compared therapeutic ultrasound to placebo. This trial showed no difference in range of motion, pain or gait velocity after 4 weeks of therapeutic ultrasound. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound to an active therapy (n=220). These trials showed no statistical difference between galvanic current or short wave diathermy for the outcomes of pain and patient-assessed improvement. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound therapy appears to have no benefit over placebo or short wave diathermy for patients with knee OA. These conclusions are limited by the poor reporting of the characteristics of the device, of the population, of the OA,and therapeutic application of the ultrasound and low methodological quality of the trials included. No conclusions can be drawn about the use of ultrasound in smaller joints such as the wrists or hands.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Etidronate for treating and preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy of etidronate on bone density, fractures and toxicity in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE from 1966 to December 1998, examined citations of relevant articles, and the proceedings of international osteoporosis meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, primary authors, and pharmaceutical industry sources for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included thirteen trials (with 1010 participants) that randomized women to etidronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and/or vitamin D) and measured bone density for at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: The data suggested a reduction in vertebral fractures with a pooled relative risk of 0.60% (95% CI 0.41 to 0.88). There was no effect on non-vertebral fractures (pooled relative risk 1.00, (95% CI 0.68 to 1.42)). Etidronate, relative to control, increased bone density after three years of treatment in the lumbar spine by 4.27% (95% CI 2.66 to 5.88), in the femoral neck by 2.19% (95% CI 0.43, 3.95) and in the total body by 0.97% (95% CI 0.39, 1.55). Effects were larger at 4 years, though the number of patients followed was much smaller. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Etidronate increases bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck. The pooled estimates of fracture reduction with etidronate are consistent with a reduction in vertebral fractures, but no effect on non-vertebral fractures.

Bone Density↗

PubMed2001

Calcium-channel blockers for Raynaud's phenomenon in systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) have Raynaud's phenomenon (RP), which is often more severe than idiopathic RP. This study was a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of calcium-channel blockers for the treatment of RP in SSc. The primary outcome measures were frequency and severity of ischemic attacks, digital skin temperature, patient and physician global assessments, and digital ulcers. METHODS: The Cochrane search strategy was used to ascertain all trials in all languages. Primary data sources included Medline, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of >2 days' duration with a dropout rate of <35%. Twenty-nine studies were found, of which 8 randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. The total number of patients included was small (n = 109). Most trials included primary and secondary RP, and the main reasons for trial exclusion were inability to extract subset data on SSc patients (18 trials), data published previously (2 trials), and lack of a control group (1 trial). Data were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers, and either a weighted mean difference (WMD) or a standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for all continuous outcomes; however, information was not available for all outcomes within trials. RESULTS: The WMD of all calcium-channel blockers versus placebo (6 trials) and of nifedipine alone versus placebo (5 trials) for the reduction in the frequency of ischemic attacks over a 2-week period was -8.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -15.71, -0.91) and -10.21 (95% CI -20.09, -0.34), respectively. The SMD of all calcium-channel blockers versus placebo (3 trials) and of nifedipine alone versus placebo (2 trials) for the reduction in the severity of ischemic attacks was -0.69 (95% CI -1.21, -0.17) and -0.99 (95% CI -1.74, -0.24), respectively. CONCLUSION: Calcium-channel blockers for RP in SSc have been tested in several small clinical trials and appear to lead to significant clinical improvement in both the frequency and the severity of ischemic attacks. Most trials were crossover trials in which order effect was not studied. This could have introduced bias. The results of this study suggest that the efficacy of calcium-channel blockers in reducing the severity and frequency of ischemic attacks in RP secondary to SSc is moderate at best (mean reduction of 8.3 attacks in 2 weeks and 35% less severity), and a further large, randomized controlled trial needs to be conducted.

Calcium Channel Blockers↗

PubMed2001

Do silicone breast implants cause rheumatologic disorders? A systematic review for a court-appointed national science panel.

OBJECTIVE: To assist in evaluating expert testimony and scientific evidence presented in law suits brought against silicone breast implant manufacturers, a US District Court Order established a National Science Panel to assess whether existing studies provide scientific evidence of an association between silicone breast implants and systemic classic/accepted connective disease, atypical connective disease, and certain signs and symptoms identified by plaintiffs in the law suits. Local disorders potentially associated with these implants were not addressed in this review. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of published studies on the association between silicone breast implants and systemic connective tissue disorders. METHODS: Data from relevant studies (human cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies with > or = 10 participants and appropriate controls) were identified through literature searches of Medline, Current Contents, HealthStar, Biological Abstracts, EMBase, Toxline, and Dissertation Abstracts. Two independent reviewers, using standard collection forms, extracted data from the included studies. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) in cohort studies and odds ratios (ORs) in case-control and cross-sectional studies were reported if provided; otherwise, unadjusted RRs and ORs were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. No association was evident between breast implants and any established or atypical connective tissue disorder. There was discordance among studies in reports of arthralgias, lymphadenopathy, myalgias, sicca symptoms, skin changes, and stiffness. CONCLUSION: The panel found no evidence to support expert testimony suggesting an association between silicone breast implants and connective diseases. Discordance for symptoms may reflect differences in symptoms included in various categories, the small number of cases, and the effect of having single subjects with > 1 symptom represented in analyses of each symptom reported. The process presented here is an early example of the use of independent scientific panels to help courts clarify scientific evidence in legal proceedings.

Breast Implants↗

PubMed2001

A meta-analysis of etidronate for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

The aim of the study was to review the effect of etidronate on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. We searched MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, examined citations of relevant articles, and the proceedings of international osteoporosis meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, primary authors, and pharmaceutical industry sources for unpublished data. We included 13 trials that randomized women to etidronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and/or vitamin D) and measured bone density for at least 1 year. For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality and abstracted data. The data suggested a reduction in vertebral fractures with a pooled relative risk of 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.92). There was no effect on nonvertebral fractures (relative risk 0.99, (95% CI 0.69 to 1.42). Etidronate, relative to control, increased bone density after 1-3 years of treatment in the lumbar spine by 4.06% (95% CI 3.12 to 5.00), in the femoral neck by 2.35% (95% CI 1.66 to 3.04) and in the total body by 0.97% (95% CI 0.39 to 1.55). Effects were larger at 4 years, though the number of patients followed much smaller. Etidronate increases bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck for up to 4 years. The pooled estimates of fracture reduction with etidronate suggest a reduction in vertebral fractures, but no effect on nonvertebral fractures.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Cost effectiveness of nasal calcitonin in postmenopausal women: use of Cochrane Collaboration methods for meta-analysis within economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of nasal calcitonin (Miacalcin) compared with no therapy, alendronate or etidronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with previous osteoporotic fracture. DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-analysis followed by economic analysis. PERSPECTIVE: A Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. METHODS: The meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials was based on the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Economic analysis was conducted within a Markov model using probabilities and costs derived from Canadian sources. RESULTS: The meta-analysis found evidence of the positive effect of both nasal calcitonin and alendronate in reducing the risks of hip, wrist and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women. However, there was a lack of evidence of the effect of etidronate on hip and wrist fractures. For a 65-year-old woman, with 5 years' therapy, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for nasal calcitonin was 46,500 Canadian dollars ($Can) compared with no therapy and $Can32,600 compared with etidronate (1998 values). Comparison with alendronate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of one specific trial. CONCLUSIONS: Given the results of the analysis, based on current evidence, nasal calcitonin can be considered at the margins of being cost effective when compared with no therapy. Compared with active therapy, nasal calcitonin can be considered more cost effective than etidronate, but its cost effectiveness versus alendronate is inconclusive.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Discrimination of changes in osteoporosis outcomes.

The purpose of this paper was to identify existing work related to discrimination, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for 4 key clinical outcomes in osteoporosis, to serve as a background to discussions about how to define MCID for both individuals and groups. The outcomes assessed were bone density, fractures, quality of life, and function. We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents for articles that discussed responsiveness, detectable difference, improvement criteria, and clinical importance. We used the Beaton cube to classify the studies depending on whether they compared differences between or changes within individuals or groups. Although a number of studies were identified that presented data on detectable differences beyond error and observed differences, few studies presented data on how to define clinically important differences. A key priority for future research is to define minimally clinical important differences for clinically important osteoporosis outcomes using a consensus based approach that will be accepted by the osteoporosis community at large. Furthermore, these MCID will likely be different for individual patients seen in clinical practice than for individuals in a clinical trial.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2001

Issues of consensus and debate for economic evaluation in rheumatology.

We report initial attempts at developing standards for the conduct of economic evaluations in rheumatology. We surveyed 25 clinicians and economists with an interest in rheumatology regarding the design and reporting of economic evaluations, with particular reference to 4 clinical scenarios relating to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. The results demonstrated widespread agreement on a number of methodological issues such as statement of funding source, perspective, discounting, and allowance for uncertainty. However, there was lack of consensus over clinical variables including sources of data for efficacy estimates, specific clinical outcomes, methods of assessing quality of life, and choice of comparators. Some of the disagreement reflects lack of consensus in current general methodological guidelines. Consensus regarding the disease-specific clinical variables is crucial to standardizing analysis and facilitating comparisons within clinical scenarios.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2001

Patient based method of assessing adverse events in clinical trials in rheumatology: the revised Stanford Toxicity Index.

We describe the progress towards developing a patient rated toxicity index that meets all of the patient-important attributes defined by the OMERACT Drug Safety Working Party. These attributes are frequency, severity, importance to patient, importance to the clinician, impact on economics, impact on activities, and integration of adverse effects with benefits. The Stanford Toxicity Index (STI) has been revised to collect all attributes with the exception of impact on activities. However, since the STI is a part of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), impact on activities is collected by the HAQ. In particular, a new question asks patients to rate overall satisfaction, taking into consideration both benefits and adverse effects. The next step in the development of this tool is to ensure that the STI meets the OMERACT filter of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Although truth and feasibility have been confirmed by comparisons within the ARAMIS database, discrimination needs to be assessed in clinical trials.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

PubMed2000

Pharmacotherapy for Behcet's syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of available pharmacological interventions in treating the different clinical features of Behcet's syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to January 1998. The computer search was complemented by a hand search of all bibliographic references from the reference lists of included trials. Principal investigators were contacted to seek unpublished literature. All languages were included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they fulfilled all of the four following criteria: 1. Randomized controlled trials, single or double-blind; 2. Participants were patients with Behcet's Syndrome as defined by the International Study Group, 1990 (Int Study Group, 1990); 3. Interventions included any pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or some other pharmacological intervention for the treatment of Behcet's syndrome. 4. Outcome measures included active ocular inflammatory processes, arthritis, mucocutaneous manifestations (oral ulcer, genital ulcer, erythema nodosum), laboratory changes and major events such as adverse effects and death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The 32 potentially relevant references were assessed by two independent reviewers (MA, AS) according to the inclusion criteria. Ten trials fit the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. From the 10 included trials, data were independently extracted by the same two observers and crosschecked. The quality of the included trials was assessed independently by two observers (MA, AS) using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). For dichotomous measures, the treatment effect for each trial was calculated using a fixed effect model [Peto model (Petitti 1994)]. The weighted mean differences were based, if available, on end-of-trial results. The analysis was conducted separately for each different intervention. Since the trials could not be pooled it was not possible to carry out a sensitivity analysis by quality scores or a subgroup analysis by drug dosages. Because of this lack of comparability across trials and the small number of trials, we could not conduct a heterogeneity test or a funnel plot. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials and 679 patients were included. The main results were the lack of efficacy of some of the classic treatments for Behcet's syndrome, including colchicine, cyclophosphamide and steroids for eye involvement, azapropazone and colchicine for arthritis and acyclovir, colchicine and topical interpheron for aphthas. The results confirm the protective effects of cyclosporine and azathioprine for eye involvement and benzathine-penicillin for arthritis. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that further randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials should be carried out to compare cyclosporine, azathioprine and benzathine-penicillin versus placebo in order to make the results generalizable and comparable.

Acyclovir↗

PubMed2000

Moderate-term, low-dose corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of low-dose corticosteroid efficacy in the moderate term for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search in MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, using the keywords "corticosteroids" and "rheumatoid arthritis". We also handsearched all issues of Arthritis and Rheumatism and the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology from their dates of first publication to 1994. Furthermore, we examined all Arthritis and Rheumatism abstracts over the 15 year period preceding 1994. References of all identified studies were searched for relevant trials. Authors of unpublished manuscripts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected by two independent reviewers (LC, KS) using a set of predetermined criteria. Specifically, we required that trials be randomized or cross-over and report at least one of the following outcome measures in a quantitative manner: joint tenderness, joint swelling, grip strength, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We also required that trials be of at least three months duration and use prednisone (or a comparable corticosteroid preparation) at a mean dosage of less than or equal to 15 mg/day. We included studies that used either placebo or active drug controls (i.e., comparative studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We compared the effectiveness of prednisone to placebo and/or active controls using a fixed effects model for continuous data. A chi square test for homogeneity was performed, and where heterogeneity existed a random effects model was used. We reported results for all available outcomes recommended by the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) group. These included the number of tender and swollen joints, pain, functional status and ESR. Grip strength was also evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for outcomes assessing the same concept with different scales (eg. swollen joint counts). MAIN RESULTS: Very few studies directly assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroids for RA treatment and many were of poor methodologic quality. Only seven of 34 studies identified by our search met criteria for inclusion. Our results indicated that corticosteroids were significantly more effective than placebo controls for four of six outcomes assessed [standardized mean difference for tender joints = -0.37 (95%CI: -0. 59, -0.14), swollen joints = -0.41 (-0.67, -0.16), pain = -0.43 (-0. 74, -0.12), and functional status = -0.57 (-0.92, -0.22)]. The results for grip strength and ESR were not significant [GS = +0.30 (-0.19, +0.80), weighted mean difference (WMD) for ESR = -7.03 (-18. 06, +4.01)]. The single trial that compared prednisone to aspirin indicated no statistically significant difference between these groups for joint tenderness (0.10 (-0.35, +0.55) and for ESR [0.00 (-11.09, +11.09]. Overall, the four outcomes assessed in the single trial that compared prednisone to chloroquine suggested that the effectiveness of these two agents is similar [SMD for joint tenderness = +0.23 (-0.30, +0.75), swollen joints = +0.43 (-0.11, +0. 96), functional status = -0.27 (-0.80, +0.26), and WMD for ESR = -16. 00 (-30.58, -1.42)]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited data available, moderate-term prednisone treatment of RA appears to be superior to placebo and comparable to treatment with aspirin or chloroquine in improving several common rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗

PubMed2000

Massage for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern societies. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability, and speed return to normal function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Healthstar, CINAHL and Dissertation abstracts from 1966 to 1999 with no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were also screened. Contact with content experts and massage associations were also made. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included randomized, quasi-randomized or controlled clinical trials that investigated the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer applied the selection criteria and extracted the data. Two reviewers (one blinded to authors, institutions and journals) independently assessed the quality of each trial. A qualitative analysis (best-evidence synthesis) was performed due to clinical heterogeneity among the included trials and insufficient data reported. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two trials were of high and two of low methodological quality. None evaluated massage as the main intervention. Rather, it was the control intervention in studies evaluating manipulation, electrical stimulation, and a lumbar corset. There is limited evidence showing that massage is less effective than manipulation immediately after the first session and moderate evidence showing it is less effective than TENS during the course of sessions in relieving pain and improving activity. At the completion of treatment and at 3 weeks after discharge there is no difference among massage and manipulation, electrical stimulation or corsets, but this evidence is limited. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studies reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to recommend massage as a stand-alone treatment for non-specific low back pain. There is a need for high quality controlled trials to further evaluate the effects of massage for this condition.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Calcitonin for the treatment and prevention of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis is a cause of morbidity in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, asthma, and rheumatologic disorders. Corticosteroid treatment causes bone loss by a variety of complex mechanisms. It has been shown that bone mineral loss at the hip averages 14% in the first year after starting corticosteroid therapy. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of calcitonin (subcutaneous or nasal) for the treatment and prevention of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search of Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Embase using the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group search strategy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to May 1998. We also searched bibliographic references and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers selected RCTs which met predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data using predetermined forms and assessed methodological quality of randomization, blinding and dropouts. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks (RR) were calculated. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) of the percent change from baseline were calculated. We decided a priori to use random effects models for all outcomes, because of uncertainty about whether a consistent true effect exists in such different populations. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria, including 221 patients randomized to calcitonin and 220 to placebo. The median methodologic quality was two out of a maximum of five points. Calcitonin was more effective than placebo at preserving bone mass at the lumbar spine after six and 12 months of therapy with a WMD of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.4 to 4.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 0.3 to 6.1). At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD was not statistically different between groups: WMD 4.5% (95% CI: -0.6 to 9.5)]. Bone density at the distal radius was also higher with calcitonin after six months of therapy, but bone density at the femoral neck was not different between placebo and calcitonin treated groups. The relative risk of fractures was not significantly different between calcitonin and placebo with a relative risk (RR) of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.26 to 1.89) for vertebral and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.14 to 1.96) for nonvertebral fractures. The subgroup analyses of methodological quality and duration of corticosteroid therapy were confounded. Trials of patients who had been taking steroids for greater than three months (which were of low methodologic quality) demonstrated a larger effect of calcitonin on spine bone density (about 6%) than prevention trials (about 1%). There was no consistent effect of different dosages (50-100 IU compared to 200-400 IU). However, subcutaneous calcitonin showed substantially greater prevention of bone loss. Withdrawals due to side effects were higher in the calcitonin-treated groups: RR 3.19 (95%CI: 0.66 to 15.47). Important side effects included nausea and facial flushing. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Calcitonin appears to preserve bone mass in the first year of glucocorticoid therapy at the lumbar spine by about 3% compared to placebo, but not at the femoral neck. Our analysis suggests that the protective effect on bone mass may be greater for the treatment of patients who have been taking corticosteroids for more than three months. Efficacy of calcitonin for fracture prevention in steroid-induced osteoporosis remains to be established.

Calcitonin↗

PubMed2000

Low level laser therapy (classes I, II and III) for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the registry of the Rehabilitation and Related Thereapies field and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 112 patients randomized to laser, 85 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Pain was assessed by four trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) of three trials showed no effect on pain measured using a scale (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI: -1.0, +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p>0,05). Two of the trials showed no effect and one demonstrated very beneficial effects with laser. In another trial, with no scale-based pain outcome, significantly more patients reported pain relief (yes/no) with laser with an odds ratio of 0.05, (95% CI: 0.0 to 1.56). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility and strength were not significant. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Low level laser therapy (classes I, II and III) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for RA about 10 years ago. LLLT is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. The effectiveness of LLLT for rheumatoid arthritis is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the registries of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal group and the field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, we selected only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently select trials for inclusion, then extracted data and assessed quality using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included in the five placebo-controlled trials, with 112 randomized to laser therapy. Relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness duration by 27.5 minutes (95%CI: 2.9 to 52 minutes) and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI: 0. 8 to 1.7 cm). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion and local swelling did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application or treatment length. For RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between the control and treatment hand, but all hands improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In summary, LLLT for RA is beneficial as a minimum of a four-week treatment with reductions in pain and morning stiffness. On the one hand, this meta-analysis found that pooled data gave some evidence of a clinical effect, but the outcomes were in conflict, and it must therefore be concluded that firm documentation of the application of LLLT in RA is not possible. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗