A systematic review with procedural assessments and meta-analysis of Low Level Laser Therapy in lateral elbow tendinopathy (tennis elbow)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent reviews have indicated that low level level laser therapy (LLLT) is ineffective in lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) without assessing validity of treatment procedures and doses or the influence of prior steroid injections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review with meta-analysis, with primary outcome measures of pain relief and/or global improvement and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, wavelengths and treatment procedures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>18 randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified with 13 RCTs (730 patients) meeting the criteria for meta-analysis. 12 RCTs satisfied half or more of the methodological criteria. Publication bias was detected by Egger's graphical test, which showed a negative direction of bias. Ten of the trials included patients with poor prognosis caused by failed steroid injections or other treatment failures, or long symptom duration or severe baseline pain. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain relief was 10.2 mm [95% CI: 3.0 to 17.5] and the RR for global improvement was 1.36 [1.16 to 1.60]. Trials which targeted acupuncture points reported negative results, as did trials with wavelengths 820, 830 and 1064 nm. In a subgroup of five trials with 904 nm lasers and one trial with 632 nm wavelength where the lateral elbow tendon insertions were directly irradiated, WMD for pain relief was 17.2 mm [95% CI: 8.5 to 25.9] and 14.0 mm [95% CI: 7.4 to 20.6] respectively, while RR for global pain improvement was only reported for 904 nm at 1.53 [95% CI: 1.28 to 1.83]. LLLT doses in this subgroup ranged between 0.5 and 7.2 Joules. Secondary outcome measures of painfree grip strength, pain pressure threshold, sick leave and follow-up data from 3 to 8 weeks after the end of treatment, showed consistently significant results in favour of the same LLLT subgroup (p < 0.02). No serious side-effects were reported.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LLLT administered with optimal doses of 904 nm and possibly 632 nm wavelengths directly to the lateral elbow tendon insertions, seem to offer short-term pain relief and less disability in LET, both alone and in conjunction with an exercise regimen. This finding contradicts the conclusions of previous reviews which failed to assess treatment procedures, wavelengths and optimal doses.</p

Expression of carbonic anhydrase II (CA II) promoter-reporter fusion genes in multiple tissues of transgenic mice does not replicate normal patterns of expression indicating complexity of CA II regulation in vivo

Although the proximal, 5′ 115 bp of the human carbonic anhydrase II (CA II) gene was sufficient for expression of a reporter gene in some transfected cell lines, we found previously that 1100 bp of this promoter (or 500 bp of the mouse CA II promoter) was not sufficient for expression in transgenic mice. We have now studied the expression of linked reporter genes in mice transgenic for either (1) 11 kb of the human 5′ promoter or (2) 8 kb of the human 5′ promoter with mouse sequences from the first exon, part of the first intron (since a CpG island spans this region), and the 3′ sequences of the gene. Expression was found in both cases, but the tissue specificity was not appropriate for CA II. Although there was a difference in the sensitivity of the assays used, the first construct led to expression in many tissues, while the second construct was expressed only in spleen. These findings indicate considerable complexity of DNA control regions for in vivo CA II expression.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44160/1/10528_2004_Article_BF00554600.pd

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment for low back pain in Chinese patients: a discrete choice experiment

Acupuncture is a popular but controversial treatment option for low back pain. In China, it is practised as traditional Chinese medicine; other treatment strategies for low back pain are commonly practised as Western medicine. Research on patient preference for low back-pain treatment options has been mainly conducted in Western countries and is limited to a willingness-to-pay approach. A stated-preference, discrete choice experiment was conducted to determine Chinese patient preferences and trade-offs for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment in low back pain from September 2011 to August 2012 after approval from the Department of Scientific Research in the study settings. Eight-six adult outpatients who visited the ‘traditional medicine department’ at a traditional Chinese medicine hospital and the ‘rehabilitation department’ at a Western medicine hospital in Guangdong Province of China for chronic low back pain during study period participated in an interview survey. A questionnaire containing 10 scenarios (5 attributes in each scenario) was used to ask participants' preference for acupuncture, low frequency infrared treatment or neither option. Validated responses were analysed using a nested-logit model. The decision on whether to receive a therapy was not associated with the expected utility of receiving therapy, female gender and higher out-of-pocket payment significantly decreased chance to receive treatments. Of the utility of receiving either acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment, the treatment sensation was the most important attribute as an indicator of treatment efficacy, followed by the maximum efficacy, maintenance duration and onset of efficacy, and the out-of-pocket payment. The willingness-to-pay for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment were about $618.6 and$592.4 USD per course respectively, demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. The treatment sensation was regarded as an indicator of treatment efficacy and the most important attribute for choosing acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment. The high willingness-to-pay demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. However, there may be other factors influencing patients' preference to receive treatments