Effectiveness of dry needling for improving pain and disability in adults with tension-type, cervicogenic, or migraine headaches: Protocol for a systematic review

Background: Headache is the most common neurological symptoms worldwide, as over 90% of people have noted at least one headache during their lifetime. Tension-type headaches, cervicogenic headaches, and migraines are common types of headache which can have a significant impact on social, physical, and occupational functioning. Therapeutic management of headaches mainly includes physical therapy and pharmacological interventions. Dry needling is a relatively new therapeutic approach that uses a thin filiform needle without injectate to penetrate the skin and stimulate underlying tissues for the management of neuromusculoskeletal pain and movement impairments. The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling in comparison to other interventions on pain and disability in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine. Methods/design: We will focus on clinical trials with concurrent control group(s) and comparative observational studies assessing the effect of dry needling in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine. Electronic databases from relevant fields of research (PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Embase®, PEDro, Web of Science, Ovid, AMED, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar) will be searched from inception to June 2019 using defined search terms. No restrictions for language of publication or geographic location will be applied. Moreover, grey literature, citation tracking, and reference lists scanning of the selected studies will be searched manually. Primary outcomes of this study are pain intensity and disability, and secondary outcomes are cervical spine ROM, frequency of headaches, health-related quality of life, and TrPs tenderness. Studies will be selected by three independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Three reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a pre-piloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. The assessment of risk of bias will be implemented using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group 13-item criteria and NOS. Direct meta-analysis will be performed using a fixed or random effects model to estimate effect size such as standardized mean difference (Morris's d ppc ) and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity will also be evaluated using the I 2 statistic and the χ2 test. All meta-analyses will be performed using Stata V.11 and V.14 softwares. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes will be assessed using GRADE. Discussion: All analyses in this study will be based on the previous published papers. Therefore, ethical approval and patient consent are not required. The findings of this study will provide important information on the value of dry needling for the management of tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine

Does motor control training improve pain and function in adults with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation?:A systematic review and meta-analysis of 861 subjects in 16 trials

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of motor control training (MCT) compared with other physical therapist-led interventions, minimal/no intervention or surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Eight databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included clinical trial studies with concurrent comparison groups which examined the effectiveness of MCT in patients with symptomatic LDH. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional status which were expressed as mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD), respectively. RESULTS: We screened 6695 articles, of which 16 clinical trials (861 participants) were eligible. Fourteen studies were judged to have high risk of bias and two studies had some risk of bias. In patients who did not undergo surgery, MCT resulted in clinically meaningful pain reduction compared with other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) at short-term (MD -28.85, -40.04 to -17.66, n=69, studies=2). However, the robustness of the finding was poor. For functional status, a large and statistically significant treatment effect was found in favour of MCT compared with traditional/classic general exercises at long-term (SMD -0.83 to -1.35 to -0.31, n=63, studies=1) and other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, TENS) at short-term (SMD -1.43 to -2.41 to -0.46, n=69, studies=2). No studies compared MCT with surgery. In patients who had undergone surgery, large SMDs were seen. In favour of MCT compared with traditional/classic general exercises (SMD -0.95 to -1.32 to -0.58, n=124, studies=3), other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, conventional treatments; SMD -2.30 to -2.96 to -1.64, n=60, studies=1), and minimal intervention (SMD -1.34 to -1.87 to -0.81, n=68, studies=2) for functional improvement at short-term. The overall certainty of evidence was very low to low. CONCLUSION: At short-term, MCT improved pain and function compared with TENS in patients with symptomatic LDH who did not have surgery. MCT improved function compared with traditional/classic general exercises at long-term in patients who had undergone surgery. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the high risk of bias in the majority of studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016038166

Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Low back pain is highly prevalent and the main cause of years lived with disability (YLDs). We present the most up-to-date global, regional, and national data on prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021. Methods: Population-based studies from 1980 to 2019 identified in a systematic review, international surveys, US medical claims data, and dataset contributions by collaborators were used to estimate the prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from 1990 to 2020, for 204 countries and territories. Low back pain was defined as pain between the 12th ribs and the gluteal folds that lasted a day or more; input data using alternative definitions were adjusted in a network meta-regression analysis. Nested Bayesian meta-regression models were used to estimate prevalence and YLDs by age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was projected to 2050 by running a regression on prevalence rates using Socio-demographic Index as a predictor, then multiplying them by projected population estimates. Findings: In 2020, low back pain affected 619 million (95% uncertainty interval 554–694) people globally, with a projection of 843 million (759–933) prevalent cases by 2050. In 2020, the global age-standardised rate of YLDs was 832 per 100 000 (578–1070). Between 1990 and 2020, age-standardised rates of prevalence and YLDs decreased by 10·4% (10·9–10·0) and 10·5% (11·1–10·0), respectively. A total of 38·8% (28·7–47·0) of YLDs were attributed to occupational factors, smoking, and high BMI. Interpretation: Low back pain remains the leading cause of YLDs globally, and in 2020, there were more than half a billion prevalent cases of low back pain worldwide. While age-standardised rates have decreased modestly over the past three decades, it is projected that globally in 2050, more than 800 million people will have low back pain. Challenges persist in obtaining primary country-level data on low back pain, and there is an urgent need for more high-quality, primary, country-level data on both prevalence and severity distributions to improve accuracy and monitor change. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation