The Effectiveness of Pump Techniques and Pompages: A Systematic Review

Background: Osteopathic manual procedures called pump techniques include thoracic, ab-dominal, and pedal pump. Similar techniques, called pompages, are also addressed to joints and muscles. Despite their widespread use, no systematic review has been published on their effectiveness. (2) Methods: CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched until July 2020. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on adults were included. Subjective (e.g. pain, physical function) and objective (e.g. pulmonary function, blood collection) outcomes were considered. The Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the GRADE instrument were used to evaluate the quality of evidence. (3) Results: 25 RCTs were included: 20 concerning the pump techniques and five the pompages. Due to the extensive heterogeneity of such studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. Risk of bias resulted from moderate to high and quality of the evidence from very very low to high. Singular studies suggested some effectiveness of pump techniques on pain and length of hospitalization. Pompages seems also to help improve walking distance and balance. (4) Conclusions: Although Despite several studies have been published on manual pump tech-niques, the differences for population, modalities, dosage, and outcome measures do not allow definite conclusions of their effectiveness

Linguistic profile automated characterisation in pluripotential clinical high-risk mental state (CHARMS) conditions: methodology of a multicentre observational study

Introduction: Language is usually considered the social vehicle of thought in intersubjective communications. However, the relationship between language and high- order cognition seems to evade this canonical and unidirectional description (ie, the notion of language as a simple means of thought communication). In recent years, clinical high at-risk mental state (CHARMS) criteria (evolved from the Ultra-High-Risk paradigm) and the introduction of the Clinical Staging system have been proposed to address the dynamicity of early psychopathology. At the same time, natural language processing (NLP) techniques have greatly evolved and have been successfully applied to investigate different neuropsychiatric conditions. The combination of at-risk mental state paradigm, clinical staging system and automated NLP methods, the latter applied on spoken language transcripts, could represent a useful and convenient approach to the problem of early psychopathological distress within a transdiagnostic risk paradigm. Methods and analysis: Help-seeking young people presenting psychological distress (CHARMS+/− and Clinical Stage 1a or 1b; target sample size for both groups n=90) will be assessed through several psychometric tools and multiple speech analyses during an observational period of 1-year, in the context of an Italian multicentric study. Subjects will be enrolled in different contexts: Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), Section of Psychiatry, University of Genoa—IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy; Mental Health Department—territorial mental services (ASL 3—Genoa), Genoa, Italy; and Mental Health Department—territorial mental services (AUSL—Piacenza), Piacenza, Italy. The conversion rate to full-blown psychopathology (CS 2) will be evaluated over 2 years of clinical observation, to further confirm the predictive and discriminative value of CHARMS criteria and to verify the possibility of enriching them with several linguistic features, derived from a fine-grained automated linguistic analysis of speech. Ethics and dissemination: The methodology described in this study adheres to ethical principles as formulated in the Declaration of Helsinki and is compatible with International Conference on Harmonization (ICH)-good clinical practice. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by two different ethics committees (CER Liguria approval code: 591/2020—id.10993; Comitato Etico dell’Area Vasta Emilia Nord approval code: 2022/0071963). Participants will provide their written informed consent prior to study enrolment and parental consent will be needed in the case of participants aged less than 18 years old. Experimental results will be carefully shared through publication in peer- reviewed journals, to ensure proper data reproducibility. Trial registration number DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/BQZTN

The effects of the addition of mechanical traction to physical therapy on low back pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparative effects of different types or parameters of lumbar traction in low back pain (LBP). Methods: CENTRAL, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to March 31, 2021. We considered all RCTs comparing different types or parameters of lumbar traction on adults who complained of LBP with or without lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Any restriction regarding publication time or language was applied. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, and five were pooled. Meta-analyses of results from five studies on LBP with LR showed no significant difference between diverse tractions modalities at short-term follow-up. Very low to low-quality evidence supports these results. High-force and low-force traction demonstrated clinically significant improvements in pain. Conclusion: The literature suggests the short-term effectiveness of traction on pain in LBP with LR, regardless of the type or the dosage employed. Different effects of traction other the mechanical ones can be hypothesized. This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to the similar effects of different traction types or dosages. Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study

Vertical traction for lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review

Background: Only low-quality evidence is currently available to support the effectiveness of different traction modalities in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Yet, traction is still very commonly used in clinical practice. Some authors have suggested that the subgroup of patients presenting signs and symptoms of nerve root compression and unresponsive to movements centralizing symptoms may benefit from lumbar traction. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of vertical traction (VT) on pain and activity limitation in patients affected by LR. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro from their inception to March 31, 2019 to retrieve RCTs on adults with LR using VT to reduce pain and activity limitation. We considered only trials reporting complete data on outcomes. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the results, and performed the quality assessment using the Risk of Bias and GRADE tools. Results: Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence for a large effect of VT added to bed rest when compared to bed rest alone (g = - 1.01; 95% CI = -2.00 to - 0.02). Similarly, VT added to medication may have a large effect on pain relief when compared to medication alone (g = - 1.13; 95% CI = -1.72 to - 0.54, low quality evidence). Effects of VT added to physical therapy on pain relief were very small when compared to physical therapy without VT (g = - 0.14; 95% CI = -1.03 to 0.76, low quality evidence). All reported effects concerned short-term effect up to 3 months post-intervention. Conclusions: With respect to short-term effects, VT may have a positive effect on pain relief if added to medication or bed rest. Long-term effects of VT are currently unknown. Future higher quality research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change these conclusions

The Effectiveness of Pump Techniques and Pompages: A Systematic Review

Background: Osteopathic manual procedures called pump techniques include thoracic, abdominal, and pedal pumps. Similar techniques, called pompages, are also addressed to joints and muscles. Despite their widespread use, no systematic review has been published on their effectiveness. (2) Methods: CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched until July 2020. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on adults were included. Subjective (e.g., pain, physical function) and objective (e.g., pulmonary function, blood collection) outcomes were considered. The Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the GRADE instrument were used to evaluate the quality of evidence. (3) Results: 25 RCTs were included: 20 concerning the pump techniques and five concerning pompages. Due to the extensive heterogeneity of such studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The risk of bias resulted from moderate to high and the quality of the evidence was from very low to high. Singular studies suggested some effectiveness of pump techniques on pain and length of hospitalization. Pompage seems also to help improve walking distance and balance. (4) Conclusions: Although several studies have been published on manual pump techniques, the differences for population, modalities, dosage, and outcome measures do not allow definite conclusions of their effectiveness

Effectiveness of Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: Lumbar radiculopathy is a pain syndrome caused by compression/irritation of the lumbar nerve root(s). Traction is a well-known and commonly used conservative treatment for lumbar radiculopathy, although its effectiveness is disputed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effects of different types of traction added to or compared with conservative treatments on pain and disability. Methods: Data were obtained from CENTRAL, PUBMED, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PEDro from their inception to April 2020. All randomized controlled trials on adults with lumbar radiculopathy, using mechanical traction, without any restriction regarding publication time or language, were considered. Two reviewers selected the studies, evaluated the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 5 were meta-analyzed. Results: Meta-analyses of results from low-quality studies indicated that supine mechanical traction added to physical therapist treatments had significant effects on pain (g = -0.58 [95% CI = -0.87 to -0.29]) and disability (g = -0.78 [95% CI = -1.45 to -0.11]). Analyses of results from high-quality studies of prone mechanical traction added to physical therapist intervention for pain and disability were not significant. These results were also evident at short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after intervention). Conclusions: The literature suggests that, for pain and disability in lumbar radiculopathy, there is short-term effectiveness of supine mechanical traction when added to physical therapist intervention. Impact: This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to its external validity because the treatments and the outcome measures are very similar to those commonly used in a clinical context