58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          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.

          Methods

          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.

          Results

          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.

          Conclusion

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

          To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effects. An observational study in which we assessed the methodological quality of 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses and then analyzed, using multiple logistic regression models, the associations between those assessments and estimated treatment effects. Meta-analyses from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. The associations between estimates of treatment effects and inadequate allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, and lack of double-blinding. Compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which concealment was either inadequate or unclear (did not report or incompletely reported a concealment approach) yielded larger estimates of treatment effects (P < .001). Odds ratios were exaggerated by 41% for inadequately concealed trials and by 30% for unclearly concealed trials (adjusted for other aspects of quality). Trials in which participants had been excluded after randomization did not yield larger estimates of effects, but that lack of association may be due to incomplete reporting. Trials that were not double-blind also yielded larger estimates of effects (P = .01), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17%. This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.

            Although it is widely recommended that clinical trials undergo some type of quality review, the number and variety of quality assessment scales that exist make it unclear how to achieve the best assessment. To determine whether the type of quality assessment scale used affects the conclusions of meta-analytic studies. Meta-analysis of 17 trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with standard heparin for prevention of postoperative thrombosis using 25 different scales to identify high-quality trials. The association between treatment effect and summary scores and the association with 3 key domains (concealment of treatment allocation, blinding of outcome assessment, and handling of withdrawals) were examined in regression models. Pooled relative risks of deep vein thrombosis with LMWH vs standard heparin in high-quality vs low-quality trials as determined by 25 quality scales. Pooled relative risks from high-quality trials ranged from 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.67-1.21) vs 0.52 (95% CI, 0.24-1.09) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.70-1.82) for low-quality trials. For 6 scales, relative risks of high-quality trials were close to unity, indicating that LMWH was not significantly superior to standard heparin, whereas low-quality trials showed better protection with LMWH (P<.05). Seven scales showed the opposite: high quality trials showed an effect whereas low quality trials did not. For the remaining 12 scales, effect estimates were similar in the 2 quality strata. In regression analysis, summary quality scores were not significantly associated with treatment effects. There was no significant association of treatment effects with allocation concealment and handling of withdrawals. Open outcome assessment, however, influenced effect size with the effect of LMWH, on average, being exaggerated by 35% (95% CI, 1%-57%; P= .046). Our data indicate that the use of summary scores to identify trials of high quality is problematic. Relevant methodological aspects should be assessed individually and their influence on effect sizes explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence and determinants of lateral and medial epicondylitis: a population study.

              Epicondylitis is a common disorder of the arm, yet the role of individual- and work-related factors has not been addressed in a population study. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of lateral and medial epicondylitis and to investigate their risk factors. The target population of this study comprised a representative sample of people aged 30-64 years residing in Finland during 2000-2001. Of the 5,871 subjects, 4,783 (81.5%) were included in this study. The prevalence of definite lateral epicondylitis was 1.3%, and that of medial epicondylitis was 0.4%. The prevalence did not differ between men and women and was highest in subjects aged 45-54 years. Current smoking (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4, 8.3) and former smoking (OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.3, 6.6) were associated with definite lateral epicondylitis. An interaction (p = 0.002) was found between repetitive movements of the arms and forceful activities for the risk of possible or definite lateral epicondylitis (for both repetitive and forceful activities vs. no such activity: OR = 5.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 16.5). Smoking, obesity, repetitive movements, and forceful activities independently of each other showed significant associations with medial epicondylitis. Epicondylitis is relatively common among working-age individuals in the general population. Physical load factors, smoking, and obesity are strong determinants of epicondylitis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                1471-2474
                2008
                29 May 2008
                : 9
                : 75
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bergen University College, Moellendalsvn. 6, 5009 Bergen, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Section of Physiotherapy Science University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway
                [3 ]Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo. Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 1524, Butantan, 05508-900São Paulo – SP, Brazil
                [4 ]University of Copenhagen – Institute of Sportsmedicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
                [5 ]Faculty Human Movement & Quality Life, University of Peloponnese, 23100 Sparta, Greece
                [6 ]Faculty of Health, Centre for Pain Research, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, LS2 8AJ, UK
                Article
                1471-2474-9-75
                10.1186/1471-2474-9-75
                2442599
                18510742
                62c73dec-cd81-4c9b-bafc-b2ca49fb70f4
                Copyright © 2008 Bjordal et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 January 2008
                : 29 May 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article