Search

Purpose: To systematically evaluate evidence from published systematic reviews for the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with burn injury. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature review conducted using medical and health science electronic databases up to 31 July 2022. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological study quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), and the certainty of evidence for reported outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. Results: Twenty-one systematic reviews evaluated five categories of interventions: physical, psychological, technology-aided modalities, educational and occupational programs, complementary and alternative medicine. Outcomes included fitness level, hand function, oedema, pain, pruritus, psychological state, quality of life, range of motion, return to work, strength, scar characteristics, level of impairment and burn knowledge. The methodological quality was rated as "critically low" for all reviews. Quality of evidence for the effectiveness of evaluated interventions ranged from "moderate to very low." Conclusions: Beneficial effects of inhaled aromatherapy and extracorporeal shockwave therapy on pain reduction; inhaled or massage aromatherapy, music therapy on anxiety were reported. Safety of interventions was not evaluated, due to the lack of adverse event reporting in primary studies and the included reviews. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Burn injury is a leading cause of severe morbidity, and long-term disability, with significant health and economic burden. There is emerging evidence to support the use of complementary and alternative medicine interventions (such as aromatherapy and music therapy) for alleviating anxiety. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy with comprehensive rehabilitation therapy has positive effects on pain reduction. These interventions may be considered as adjunctive tools to enhance burn rehabilitation care and improve patient outcomes. However, further robust studies are required to strengthen the evidence, explore adverse effects and associated cost efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for the management of spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). A comprehensive literature search in health science databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (up to April 2024). Manual searching in journals and screening of the reference lists of identified studies were conducted. Two authors independently selected the studies, assessed the methodological quality, and summarized the evidence. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the methodological, clinical, and statistical diversity of the included studies. Overall, 32 RCTs (n=1,481 participants) investigated various types of non-pharmacological interventions including: physical activity, transcranial magnetic stimulation (intermittent theta burst stimulation [iTBS], repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS]), electromagnetic therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, vibration therapy, shock wave therapy, self-management educational programs, and acupuncture. All studies scored 'low' on the methodological quality assessment, implying a high risk of bias. The findings suggest 'moderate to low certainty' evidence for physical activity programs used in isolation or combination with other interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), and for iTBS/rTMS with or without adjuvant exercise therapy in improving spasticity in adults with MS. There is 'very low certainty' evidence supporting the use of other modalities for treating spasticity in this population. Despite a wide range of non-pharmacological interventions used for the management of spasticity in pwMS, there is a lack of conclusive evidence for many. More robust trials with larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-ups are needed to build evidence for these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to replicate, in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), the three-cluster cognitive-behavioral classification proposed by Turk and Rudy. Sixty-two patients attending a tertiary MS rehabilitation center completed the Pain Impact Rating questionnaire measuring activity interference, pain intensity, social support, and emotional distress. The General Health Questionnaire-28 and the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 assessed disability and restriction in participation. Cluster analysis classified patients into three cognitive-behavioral groups (40.4%, "adaptive copers"; 36.5%, "dysfunctional"; and 23.1%, "interpersonally distressed"). Patients in groups with higher levels of activity interference, emotional distress due to pain, and lower perceived levels of social support had significantly higher levels of depression on the General Health Questionnaire-28 (P less than 0.003), and reported a greater impact on their physical and psychological functioning (P less than 0.001) on Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 subscales. Possible cut-points were identified to aid clinicians in classifying patients into clusters for individualized treatment. More research is needed to improve the understanding of pain and the potential use of cognitive-behavioral clusters in patients with MS. These may be useful in the development of tailored early intervention, which may reduce pain-related disability and contribute to patient's overall well being.