Search

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are the most common cause of orofacial pain of non-dental origin, with approximately 42% of diagnoses corresponding to myofascial pain. Manual therapy and dry needling are commonly used interventions for the treatment of myofascial temporomandibular disorders. However, it is unclear whether one of them could be superior to the other. Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of manual therapy and dry needling in patients with myofascial TMD. Methods: This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized clinical trials were searched in the databases of Pubmed, PEDro, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Academic and EMBASE. The methodological quality of studies included in this review was judged using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A frequentist network meta-analysis was carried out, assuming random effects, to estimate the effects of interventions for temporomandibular joint pain measured on a 10-point visual analogue scale. Results: Out of 3190 records identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis and eight were included in the network meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons between dry needling and manual therapy showed no significant differences in their effects on pain reduction (Odds Ratio [95%CI]; − 0.263 [− 1.517, 0.992]). The ranking of treatments shows that manual therapy (SUCRA = 0.932) followed by deep dry needling (SUCRA = 0.775) present the highest values of estimation and can be considered the most likely to reduce pain. Conclusions: The results of the network meta-analysis should be considered with caution due to the low quality of the evidence available and the high variability of the study protocols in terms of the method of application of dry needling and manual therapy interventions. PROSPERO under identifier: (CRD42020186470). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The main aim was to determine the effects of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on endogenous pain mechanisms in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods The search was conducted on March 1, 2022, in the EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and SCOPUS databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of transcutaneous or percutaneous electrostimulation with a placebo, control group, or standard treatment in patients with musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcome measurements were quantitative sensory testing somatosensory variables like pressure pain threshold (PPT), conditioned pain modulation, and temporal summation of pain. The pooled data were evaluated in Review Manager 5.4. Results Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (n = 24) were included in the qualitative analysis and 23 in the meta-analysis. The immediate effects of PENS and TENS on local PPTs were significant, with a moderate effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.72; P  < 0.00001). When only studies with a lower risk of bias were analyzed, the heterogeneity decreased from I 2 = 58% (P  < 0.00001) to I 2 = 15% (P  = 0.01), and a decrease in the overall effect was observed (SMD 0.33; 95% CI: 0.7 to 0.58). The short-term effects on local PPTs were not significant when compared with the control group (P  = 0.13). The mid-term effects on local PPTs were significant, showing a large effect size (SMD 0.55; 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.00; P  = 0.02). The immediate effects on conditioned pain modulation were significant, with a large effect size (SMD 0.94; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.41; P  < 0.0001). Conclusion PENS and TENS have a mild–moderate immediate effect on local mechanical hyperalgesia in patients with musculoskeletal pain. It appears that these effects are not sustained over time. Analyses suggest an effect on central pain mechanisms producing a moderate increase in remote PPT, an increase in conditioned pain modulation, but further studies are needed to draw clearer conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The main objectives of this review were, firstly, to study the effect of different physiotherapy interventions on BDNF levels, and, secondly, to analyze the influence of physiotherapy on pain levels to subsequently draw conclusions about its possible relationship with BDNF. Background: Based on the theory that neurotrophic factors such as BDNF play a fundamental role in the initiation and/or maintenance of hyperexcitability of central neurons in pain, it was hypothesized that the levels of this neurotrophic factor may be modified by the application of therapeutic interventions, favoring a reduction in pain intensity. Methods: A literature search of multiple electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, Medline (Ebsco), Scopus, WOS, Embase) was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) published without language restrictions up to and including March 2022. The search strategy was based on the combination of medical terms (Mesh) and keywords relating to the following concepts: "pain", "chronic pain", "brain derived neurotrophic factor", "BDNF", "physiotherapy", and "physical therapy". A total of seven papers were included. Results: There were two studies that showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity reduction and an increase in the BDNF levels that used therapies such as rTMS and EIMS in patients with chronic myofascial pain. However, the same conclusions cannot be drawn for the other physical therapies applied. Conclusions: rTMS and EIMS interventions achieved greater short-term reductions in pain intensity and increased BDNF over other types of interventions in chronic myofascial pain patients, as demonstrated by a moderate amount of evidence. In contrast, other types of physical therapy (PT) interventions did not appear to be more effective in decreasing pain intensity and increasing BDNF levels than placebo PT or minimal intervention, as a low amount of evidence was found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective was to assess the effectiveness of neural mobilization (NM) techniques in the management of musculoskeletal neck disorders with nerve-related symptoms (MND-NRS). Methods We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, using pain intensity, disability, perceived function, cervical range of motion, and mechanosensitivity as the main outcome measures. Results The systematic review included 22 studies (n  = 978). More favorable outcomes were observed for NM on pain intensity compared with control interventions (standardized mean differences (SMDs) −0.92; 95% CI −1.66−0.18), but not compared with other treatments (OTs) (SMD 1.06; 95% CI −0.02 to 2.15). Regarding neck pain intensity, no significant differences were found in favor of NM compared with OTs (SMD 0.37; 95% CI −0.35 to 1.1). However, between-treatment differences were found in favor of OT on arm-pain intensity (SMD 0.57; 95% CI 0.08–1.05). In addition, the grouped MA did not show statistically significant differences between NM and OT outcomes on the cervical range of motion (SMD 0.16; 95% CI −0.06 to 0.38). However, compared with no intervention, NM was associated with significantly improved outcomes in cervical rotation (SMD 0.91; 95% CI 0.61–1.22). Similar results were found regarding disability (SMD −0.08; 95% CI −0.36−0.20, and SMD −1.44; 95% CI −2.28−0.6, respectively). Finally, NM was associated with more favorable outcomes on mechanosensitivity compared with OT (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.15–1.42) and greater improvements in function compared with no intervention (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.16–1.62). Conclusions NM appeared to be effective to improve overall pain intensity when embedded in a physiotherapy treatment in the management of MND-NRS. When compared with no intervention, it was effective to improve neck rotation, disability, and function. However, it was not superior to other types of treatments in improving overall pain intensity, neck pain intensity, arm pain intensity, cervical range of motion and disability, except for mechanosensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major health, social, and economic problem. Most of the subjects who suffer from chronic musculoskeletal pain present processes of central sensitization. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation are the two most commonly used clinical measures of this. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of physical therapy on temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS databases. Different mesh terms and key words were combined for the search strategy, with the aim of encompassing all studies that have used any type of physical therapy treatment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and have measured both TS and CPM. Results Eighteen studies remained for qualitative analysis and 16 for quantitative analysis. Statistically significant differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained for TS (–0.21, 95% CI = –0.39 to –0.03, Z = 2.50, P  = 0.02, N = 721) and CPM (0.34, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.56, Z = 2.99, P  = 0.003, N = 680) in favor of physical therapy as compared with control. Manual therapy produces a slight improvement in TS, and physical therapy modalities in general improve CPM. No significant differences between the subgroups of the meta-analysis were found. The methodological quality of the studies was high. Conclusions Physical therapy produces a slight improvement in central sensitization (CS)–related variables, with TS decreased and CPM increased when compared with a control group in patients with CMP. Only significant differences in TS were identified in the manual therapy subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]