Search

Background:Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Telemedicine is of growing importance, yet impacts on treatment efficacy remain unclear. Objective:This umbrella review (CRD42022298047) examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity, disability, psychological function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and adverse events in MSK pain. Methods:PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to August 9, 2022, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, including telemedicine-delivered exercise, education, and psychological interventions, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). AMSTAR-2 was implemented. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; negative favors telemedicine) were extracted as effect estimates. Results:Of 1,135 records, 20 reviews (RCTs: n = 97, participants: n = 15,872) were included. Pain intensity SMDs were −0.66 to 0.10 for mixed pain (estimates: n = 16), −0.64 to −0.01 for low-back pain (n = 9), −0.31 to −0.15 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), −0.29 for knee pain (n = 1), −0.66 to −0.58 for fibromyalgia (n = 2), −0.16 for back pain (n = 1), and −0.09 for rheumatic disorders (n = 1). Disability SMDs were −0.50 to 0.10 for mixed pain (n = 14), −0.39 to 0.00 for low-back pain (n = 8), −0.41 to −0.04 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), −0.22 for knee pain (n = 1), and −0.56 for fibromyalgia (n = 1). Methodological quality was "critically low" for 17 reviews. Effectiveness tended to favor telemedicine for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions:Primary RCTs are required that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of the intervention (noninferiority trials), consider safety, assess videoconferencing, and combine different treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non‐pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non‐pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health‐related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short‐, medium‐ and/or long‐term follow‐up. Databases and Data Treatment: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented. Results: The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: −5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): −7.20, −3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes. Meta‐regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses. Conclusion: The study found that the contextual effect of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence‐based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component. Significance: Contextual effects of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]