The association of SARS-CoV-2 variants with long-COVID symptoms is still scarce, but new data are appearing at a fast pace. This systematic review compares the prevalence of long-COVID symptoms according to relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants in COVID-19 survivors. The MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, as well as the medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers, were searched up to 25 October 2022. Case-control and cohort studies analyzing the presence of post-COVID symptoms appearing after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by the Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2) or Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1) variants were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. From 430 studies identified, 5 peer-reviewed studies and 1 preprint met the inclusion criteria. The sample included 355 patients infected with the historical variant, 512 infected with the Alpha variant, 41,563 infected with the Delta variant, and 57,616 infected with the Omicron variant. The methodological quality of all studies was high. The prevalence of long-COVID was higher in individuals infected with the historical variant (50%) compared to those infected with the Alpha, Delta or Omicron variants. It seems that the prevalence of long-COVID in individuals infected with the Omicron variant is the smallest, but current data are heterogeneous, and long-term data have, at this stage, an obviously shorter follow-up compared with the earlier variants. Fatigue is the most prevalent long-COVID symptom in all SARS-CoV-2 variants, but pain is likewise prevalent. The available data suggest that the infection with the Omicron variant results in fewer long-COVID symptoms compared to previous variants; however, the small number of studies and the lack of the control of cofounders, e.g., reinfections or vaccine status, in some studies limit the generality of the results. It appears that individuals infected with the historical variant are more likely to develop long-COVID symptomatology.

Study Design: Randomized clinical study. Objectives: To compare the effects of trigger point (TrP) dry needling (DN) and TrP manual therapy (MT) on pain, function, pressure pain sensitivity, and cervical range of motion in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain. Background: Recent evidence suggests that TrP DN could be effective in the treatment of neck pain. However, no studies have directly compared the outcomes of TrP DN and TrP MT in this population. Methods: Ninety-four patients (mean ± SD age, 31 ± 3 years; 66% female) were randomized into a TrP DN group (n = 47) or a TrP MT group (n = 47). Neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale), cervical range of motion, and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the spinous process of C7 were measured at baseline, postintervention, and at follow-ups of 1 week and 2 weeks after treatment. The Spanish version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire was used to measure disability/function at baseline and the 2-week follow-up. Mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to determine if a time-by-group interaction existed on the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with time as the within-subject variable and group as the between-subject variable. Results: The ANOVA revealed that participants who received TrP DN had outcomes similar to those who received TrP MT in terms of pain, function, and cervical range of motion. The 4-by-2 mixed-model ANOVA also revealed a significant time-by-group interaction (P<.001) for PPT: patients who received TrP DN experienced a greater increase in PPT (decreased pressure sensitivity) than those who received TrP MT at all follow-up periods (between-group differences: posttreatment, 59.0 kPa; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.0, 69.2; 1-week follow-up, 69.2 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 79.1; 2-week follow-up, 78.9 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 89.0). Conclusion: The results of this clinical trial suggest that 2 sessions of TrP DN and TrP MT resulted in similar outcomes in terms of pain, disability, and cervical range of motion. Those in the TrP DN group experienced greater improvements in PPT over the cervical spine. Future trials are needed to examine the effects of TrP DN and TrP MT over long-term follow-up periods. Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(11):852–861. Epub 30 September 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5229

The aim of this review or meta-analysis is to synthesize the prevalence of post-coronavirus disease (COVID) pain symptoms of musculoskeletal origin in hospitalized or nonhospitalized patients recovered from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to May 1, 2021. Studies or preprints reporting data on post-COVID pain symptoms such as myalgias, arthralgias, or chest pain after SARS-CoV-2 infection and collected by personal, telephonic, or electronical interview were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Random-effects models were used for meta-analytical pooled prevalence of each post-COVID musculoskeletal pain symptom. Data synthesis was categorized at onset or hospital admission and at 30, 60, and 90, and ≥180 days after. From a total of 12,123 studies identified, 27 peer-reviewed studies and 6 preprints were included. The sample included 14,639 hospitalized and 11,070 nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients. The methodological quality of almost 70% studies was fair. The overall prevalence of post-COVID myalgia, joint pain, and chest pain ranged from 5.65% to 18.15%, 4.6% to 12.1%, and 7.8% to 23.6%, respectively, at different follow-up periods during the first year postinfection. Time trend analysis showed a decrease prevalence of musculoskeletal post-COVID pain from the symptom's onset to 30 days after, an increase 60 days after, but with a second decrease ≥180 days after. This meta-analysis has shown that almost 10% of individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 will suffer from musculoskeletal post-COVID pain symptomatology at some time during the first year after the infection.

The objective of this study was to review the literature regarding the effectiveness of neural gliding exercises for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A computer-based search was completed through May 2014 in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Plus, and CINAHL. The following key words were included: nerve tissue, gliding, exercises, carpal tunnel syndrome, neural mobilization, and neurodynamic mobilization. Thirteen clinical trials met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, which were: nerve gliding exercise management of participants aged 18 years or older; clinical or electrophysiological diagnostics of CTS; no prior surgical treatment; and absence of systemic diseases, degenerative joint diseases, musculoskeletal affectations in upper limbs or spine, or pregnancy. All studies were independently appraised using the PEDro scale. The majority of studies reported improvements in pain, pressure pain threshold, and function of CTS patients after nerve gliding, combined or not with additional therapies. When comparing nerve gliding with other therapies, 2 studies reported better results from standard care and 1 from use of a wrist splint, whereas 3 studies reported greater and earlier pain relief and function after nerve gliding in comparison with conservative techniques, such as ultrasound and wrist splint. However, 6 of the 13 studies had a quality of 5 of 11 or less according to the PEDro scale. Limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of neural gliding. Standard conservative care seems to be the most appropriate option for pain relief, although neural gliding might be a complementary option to accelerate recovery of function. More high-quality research is still necessary to determine its effectiveness and the subgroups of patients who may respond better to this treatment.