Search

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Objective: To assess the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSE) on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) compared with other non-surgical interventions., Background: AIS is a complex deformity of the spine that develops between the age of 10years and skeletal maturity. SSE are prescribed to patients to reduce or slow curve progression, although their effectiveness is unknown., Methods: Electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they compared SSE with non-surgical interventions for individuals with AIS. Three authors independently extracted data, evaluated methodological quality and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed where possible; otherwise, descriptive syntheses are reported., Results: Nine randomised controlled trials were included. Four had a high risk of bias, three had an unclear risk and two had a low risk. Very-low-quality evidence indicated that SSE improved some measures of spinal deformity, function, pain and overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Very-low-quality evidence suggested that SSE had no effect on self-image and mental health. Very-low-quality evidence showed that bracing was more effective than SSE on measures of spinal deformity. However, SSE showed greater improvements in function, HRQoL, self-image, mental health and patient satisfaction with treatment. No differences were found for pain or trunk rotation., Conclusions: SSE may be effective for improving measures of spinal deformity for people with AIS, but the evidence is of very low quality. Future studies should evaluate relevant clinical measures and cost-effectiveness using rigorous methods and reporting standards., (Copyright © 2018 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Arm pain is common, costly to health services and society. Physiotherapy referral is standard management, and while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest, but the evidence base is weak., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of advice to remain active (AA) versus advice to rest (AR); and immediate physiotherapy (IP) versus usual care (waiting list) physiotherapy (UCP)., Methods: Twenty-six-week within-trial economic evaluation (538 participants aged ≥18 years randomized to usual care, i.e. AA (n = 178), AR (n = 182) or IP (n = 178). Regression analysis estimated differences in mean costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Primary analysis comprised the 193 patients with complete resource use (UK NHS perspective) and EQ-5D data. Sensitivity analysis investigated uncertainty., Results: Baseline-adjusted cost differences were £88 [95% confidence interval (CI): -14, 201) AA versus AR; -£14 (95% CI: -87, 66) IP versus UCP. Baseline-adjusted QALY differences were 0.0095 (95% CI: -0.0140, 0.0344) AA versus AR; 0.0143 (95% CI: -0.0077, 0.0354) IP versus UCP. There was a 71 and 89% probability that AA (versus AR) and IP (versus UCP) were the most cost-effective option using a threshold of £20,000 per additional QALY.  The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: The difference in mean costs and mean QALYs between the competing strategies was small and not statistically significant. However, decision-makers may judge that IP was not shown to be any more effective than delayed treatment, and was no more costly than delayed physiotherapy. AA is preferable to one that encourages AR, as it is more effective and more likely to be cost-effective than AR., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory polyarthritis that frequently affects the hands and wrists. Hand exercises are prescribed to improve mobility and strength, and thereby hand function., Objectives: To determine the benefits and harms of hand exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), OTseeker, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to July 2017., Selection Criteria: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared hand exercise with any non-exercise therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group., Main Results: We included seven studies involving 841 people (aged 20 to 94 years) in the review. Most studies used validated diagnostic criteria and involved home programmes.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from one study indicated uncertainty about whether exercise improves hand function in the short term (< 3 months). On a 0 to 80 points hand function test (higher scores mean better function), the exercise group (n = 11) scored 76.1 points and control group (n = 13) scored 75 points.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that exercise compared to usual care probably slightly improves hand function (mean difference (MD) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 7.42; n = 449) in the medium term (3 to 11 months) and in the long term (12 months or beyond) (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.86 to 7.74; n = 438). The absolute change on a 0-to-100 hand function scale (higher scores mean better function) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) were 5% (95% CI 2% to 7%); 8 (95% CI 5 to 20) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 8%); 9 (95% CI 6 to 27), respectively. A 4% to 5% improvement indicates a minimal clinical benefit.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pain (MD -27.98, 95% CI -48.93 to -7.03; n = 124) in the short term. The absolute change on a 0-to-100-millimetre scale (higher scores mean more pain) was -28% (95% CI -49% to -7%) and NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 11).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that there is probably little or no difference between exercise and usual care on pain in the medium (MD -2.8, 95% CI - 6.96 to 1.36; n = 445) and long term (MD -3.7, 95% CI -8.1 to 0.7; n = 437). On a 0-to-100 scale, the absolute changes were -3% (95% CI -7% to 2%) and -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%), respectively.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 141) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved grip strength in the short term. The standardised mean difference for the left hand was 0.44 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.78), re-expressed as 3.5 kg (95% CI 0.87 to 6.1); and for the right hand 0.46 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.8), re-expressed as 4 kg (95% CI 1.13 to 7).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean grip strength (in kg) of both hands in the medium term (MD 1.4, 95% CI -0.27 to 3.07; n = 400), relative change 11% (95% CI -2% to 13%); and in the long term (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.62 to 3.02; n = 355), relative change 9% (95% CI -5% to 23%).Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies (n = 120) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pinch strength (in kg) in the short term. The MD and relative change for the left and right hands were 0.51 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.9) and 44% (95% CI 11% to 78%); and 0.82 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.21) and 68% (95% CI 36% to 101%).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean pinch strength of both hands in the medium (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.74; n = 396) and long term (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.88; n = 351). The relative changes were 8% (95% CI -4% to 19%) and 10% (95% CI -2% to 22%).No study evaluated the American College of Rheumatology 50 criteria.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that people who also received exercise with strategies for adherence were probably more adherent than those who received routine care alone in the medium term (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.48; n = 438) and NNTB 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). In the long term, the risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28; n = 422).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study (n = 246) indicated no adverse events with exercising. The other six studies did not report adverse events., Authors' Conclusions: It is uncertain whether exercise improves hand function or pain in the short term. It probably slightly improves function but has little or no difference on pain in the medium and long term. It is uncertain whether exercise improves grip and pinch strength in the short term, and probably has little or no difference in the medium and long term. The ACR50 response is unknown. People who received exercise with adherence strategies were probably more adherent in the medium term than who did not receive exercise, but with little or no difference in the long term. Hand exercise probably does not lead to adverse events. Future research should consider hand and wrist function as their primary outcome, describe exercise following the TIDieR guidelines, and evaluate behavioural strategies.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition expected to be the fourth leading cause of disability by the year 2020. Treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is problematic in older adults (>75 years) where the presence of comorbidities is more prevalent. Exercise has been recommended irrespective of age and comorbidity. The purpose of this project was to develop a combined exercise and self-management intervention to help older adults with OA to manage their comorbidities., Methods: Literature reviews were conducted to inform the development of an intervention followed by a pilot study to assess feasibility and test outcome measures. Participant interviews and session observation were used to evaluate the pilot study., Results: Evidence from the literature reviews suggested that a combined intervention consisting of behavioural change/self-management education and exercise was the most appropriate. Each component was developed and then tested as a combined package in a pilot study which comprised 12 sessions delivered over six weeks. Four males and six females aged between 75 and 92 years took part. The average attendance was 89%. Most participants reported some benefit and satisfaction with the programme along with changes in physical ability. The majority of participants continued with some form of exercise at three months., Conclusion: The intervention was well received and has encouraged 80% of participants to continue exercising after the programme. The small but positive changes seen in comorbidities, benefit of the intervention, satisfaction and general health are promising. Randomised controlled trial evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness is needed before such interventions can be recommended.

Background: The feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design., Design: Multicomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial., Setting: The randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS., Participants: The randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10-16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°)., Interventions: The randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities., Results: A UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions., Conclusions: A definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The effectiveness of exercise for improving hand and wrist function in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is uncertain., Objectives: The study aims were (1) to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an optimised exercise programme for hands and upper limbs to standard care for patients with RA; and (2) to qualitatively describe the experience of participants in the trial with a particular emphasis on acceptability of the intervention, exercise behaviours and reasons for adherence/non-adherence., Design: A pragmatic, multicentred, individually randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. Outcome assessors were blind to group assignment and independent of treatment delivery., Setting: Seventeen NHS trusts in England comprising 21 rheumatology and therapy departments., Participants: Adults with RA who had pain and dysfunction of the hands and/or wrists and had been on stable medication for at least 3 months. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years old, had undergone upper limb surgery/fracture in the last 6 months, were on a waiting list for upper limb surgery or were pregnant., Interventions: Usual care or usual care plus an individualised exercise programme. Usual care consisted of joint protection education, general exercise advice and functional splinting if required. The exercise programme consisted of six sessions of strengthening and stretching exercises with a hand therapist, daily home exercises and strategies to maximise adherence., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) overall hand function subscale score at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included the full MHQ, pain, health-related quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items), impairment (grip strength, dexterity and range of motion) and self-efficacy. European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, medication and health-care use were collected for the health economics evaluation. Follow-up was at 4 and 12 months post randomisation. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: We randomised 490 patients (244 to usual care, 246 to exercise programme). Compliance with the treatments was very good (93% of usual care participants and 75% of exercise programme participants completed treatment). Outcomes were obtained for 89% of participants at 12 months (222 for usual care, 216 for exercise programme). There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the exercise programme for the primary outcome at 4 and 12 months [mean difference 4.6 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 7.0 points; and mean difference 4.4 points, 95% CI 1.6 to 7.1 points, respectively]. There were no significant differences in pain scores or adverse events. The estimated difference in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued over 12 months was 0.01 greater (95% CI -0.03 to 0.05) in the exercise programme group. Imputed analysis produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates of £17,941 (0.59 probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be acceptable and highlighted the importance of the therapist in enabling patients to establish a routine and incorporate the exercises into their lives., Conclusions: The results of the Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand trial suggest that the addition of an exercise programme for RA hands/wrists to usual care is clinically effective and cost-effective when compared with usual care alone. No adverse effects were associated with the exercise programme. The economic analysis suggests that the intervention is likely to be cost-effective., Study Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 89936343.

Background: Disease-modifying biological agents and other drug regimens have substantially improved control of disease activity and joint damage in people with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. However, commensurate changes in function and quality of life are not always noted. Tailored hand exercises might provide additional improvements, but evidence is lacking. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tailored hand exercises in addition to usual care during 12 months., Methods: In this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group trial, at 17 National Health Service sites across the UK we randomly assigned 490 adults with rheumatoid arthritis who had pain and dysfunction of the hands and had been on a stable drug regimen for at least 3 months, to either usual care or usual care plus a tailored strengthening and stretching hand exercise programme. Participants were randomly assigned with stratification by centre. Allocation was computer generated and unmasked to participants and therapists delivering treatment after randomisation. Outcome assessors and all investigators were masked to allocation. Physiotherapists or occupational therapists gave the treatments. The primary outcome was the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire overall hand function score at 12 months. The analysis was by intention to treat. We calculated cost per quality-adjusted life-year. This trial is registered as ISRCTN 89936343., Findings: Between Oct 5, 2009, and May 10, 2011, we screened 1606 people, of whom 490 were randomly assigned to usual care (n=244) or tailored exercises (n=246). 438 of 490 participants (89%) provided 12 month follow-up data. Improvements in overall hand function were 3·6 points (95% CI 1·5-5·7) in the usual care group and 7·9 points (6·0-9·9) in the exercise group (mean difference between groups 4·3, 95% CI 1·5-7·1; p=0·0028). Pain, drug regimens, and health-care resource use were stable for 12 months, with no difference between the groups. No serious adverse events associated with the treatment were recorded. The cost of tailored hand exercise was £156 per person; cost per quality-adjusted life-year was £9549 with the EQ-5D (£17,941 with imputation for missing data)., Interpretation: We have shown that a tailored hand exercise programme is a worthwhile, low-cost intervention to provide as an adjunct to various drug regimens. Maximisation of the benefits of biological and DMARD regimens in terms of function, disability, and health-related quality of life should be an important treatment aim., Funding: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA), project number 07/32/05., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Distal upper limb pain (pain affecting the elbow, forearm, wrist, or hand) can be non-specific, or can arise from specific musculoskeletal disorders. It is clinically important and costly, the best approach to clinical management is unclear. Physiotherapy is the standard treatment and, while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest and avoid strenuous activities, but there is no evidence base to support these strategies. This paper describes the protocol of a randomised controlled trial to determine, among patients awaiting physiotherapy for distal arm pain, (a) whether advice to remain active and maintain usual activities results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with advice to rest; and (b) whether immediate physiotherapy results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with physiotherapy delivered after a seven week waiting list period., Methods/design: Between January 2012 and January 2014, new referrals to 14 out-patient physiotherapy departments were screened for potential eligibility. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to one of the following three groups in equal numbers: 1) advice to remain active, 2) advice to rest, 3) immediate physiotherapy. Patients were and followed up at 6, 13, and 26 weeks post-randomisation by self-complete postal questionnaire and, at six weeks, patients who had not received physiotherapy were offered it at this time. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients free of disability at 26 weeks, as determined by the modified DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire.We hypothesise (a) that advice to maintain usual activities while awaiting physiotherapy will be superior than advice to rest the arm; and (b) that fast-track physiotherapy will be superior to normal (waiting list) physiotherapy. These hypotheses will be examined using an intention-to-treat analysis., Discussion: Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base underpinning the clinical management of patients with distal upper limb pain, and in particular, will provide guidance on whether they should be advised to rest the arm or remain active within the limits imposed by their symptoms., Trial Registration: Registered on http://www.controlled-trials.com (reference number: ISRCTN79085082).

This paper describes the development and implementation of a hand exercise intervention for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as part of a large multi-centred randomised controlled trial in a U.K. National Health Service (NHS) setting. Participants are eligible if diagnosed with RA according to American College of Rheumatology criteria, have a history of disease activity, functional deficit or impairment in the hand and/or wrist, and have been on a stable medication regime for at least 3 months. The intervention development was informed by the current evidence base, published guidelines, clinician and expert opinion, and a pilot study. The exercise programme targets known, potentially modifiable physical impairments of the hand with 5 exercise sessions and a home exercise component over a 12 week period. The intervention will be provided to 240 participants along with usual care. A further 240 will receive usual care only as part of the control arm. Specific details of the treatments delivered are described. [ISRCTN no: 89936343]., (Copyright © 2011 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine the effects of a neoprene lumbar brace on the proprioceptive ability of subjects without pathology and to determine whether those with poorer proprioception were more affected by the brace., Study Design: Randomized 2 x 2 Latin square cross-over design., Setting: Laboratory in an educational institution., Subjects: Forty asymptomatic subjects matched by gender, age, weight, and height., Method: Blindfolded subjects performed a position matching task in which they flexed the trunk in the sagittal plane. Six positions across the range of motion were examined. Angular data were recorded by a lumbar motion monitor secured by straps to the subject's trunk., Main Outcome Measure: Absolute, constant, and variable errors in braced and unbraced conditions., Results: The mean absolute, constant, and variable errors were 3.6 degrees, .45 degrees, and 4.4 degrees, respectively. Absolute, constant, and variable errors were significantly decreased when wearing a brace. However, the magnitude of the decreases were small (<1.0 degrees) for all errors when wearing a brace. The high error group's absolute error improved significantly (p < .05), from 6.0 degrees when unbraced to 4.0 degrees when braced. In contrast, absolute error measurements for subjects in the low error group were unchanged, with an error of 2.0 degrees when unbraced and 2.3 degrees when braced., Conclusions: The findings suggest that a neoprene lumbar brace improves the somatosensory information received by the central nervous system and results in less error in trunk positioning. Persons with less ability to match trunk position will benefit more from wearing a neoprene brace than will those who are already adept at the task.