To evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy compared with other interventions on pain, grip strength and disability in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library and clinical trial registries. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy alone or as an additive intervention compared with sham or other interventions. Pain intensity, grip strength and elbow disability were used as primary outcome measures. We assessed methodological quality with the PEDro score and quality of evidence with the GRADE approach. Twenty-seven studies with 1871 patients were finally included. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduced pain intensity at mid-term follow-up (standardized mean difference: −1.21, 95% confidence interval:−1.53, −0.89, P < 0.001) and improved grip strength at very short- (mean difference:3.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.91, 6.94, P = 0.01) and short-term follow-up (mean difference:4.87, 95% confidence interval:2.24, 7.50, P < 0.001) compared with sham treatment. However, no clinically significant results were found between comparators in all outcomes and follow-up times. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy presented clinically better compared to Laser in grip strength at short-term (mean difference:3.50, 95% confidence interval:2.40, 4.60, P < 0.001) and ultrasound in pain intensity at very-short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference: −1.54, 95% confidence interval: −2.60, −0.48, P = 0.005). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that there are no clinical benefits of extracorporeal shockwave therapy compared to sham interventions or corticosteroid injections. Based on very-low and moderate certainty of evidence, extracorporeal shockwave therapy outperforms against Laser and ultrasound, respectively. Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1a.

Low-intensity exercise with blood flow restriction (LIE-BFR) has been proposed as an effective intervention to induce hypoalgesia in both healthy individuals and patients with knee pain. Nevertheless, there is no systematic review reporting the effect of this method on pain threshold. We aimed to evaluate the following: (i) the effect of LIE-BFR on pain threshold compared to other interventions in patients or healthy individuals; and (ii) how different types of applications may influence hypoalgesic response. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of LIE-BFR alone or as an additive intervention compared with controls or other interventions. Pain threshold was the outcome measure. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro score. Six studies with 189 healthy adults were included. Five studies were rated with ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ methodological quality. Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity, quantitative synthesis could not be performed. All studies used pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) to assess pain sensitivity. LIE-BFR resulted in significant increases in PPTs compared to conventional exercise at local and remote sites 5 min post-intervention. Higher-pressure BFR results in greater exercise-induced hypoalgesia compared to lower pressure, while exercise to failure produces a similar reduction in pain sensitivity with or without BFR. Based on our findings, LIE-BFR can be an effective intervention to increase pain threshold; however, the effect depends on the exercise methodology. Further research is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of this method in reducing pain sensitivity in patients with pain symptomatology.

Patients with chronic back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, besides pain, also present with impaired gait. The purpose of the article was to evaluate kinetic and kinematic characteristics during gait analysis in patients with chronic low back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, before and after the application of physiotherapy, including manual therapy techniques. Seventy-five patients suffering from chronic low back pain were randomly divided into 3 groups of 25 each. Each group received five sessions (one per week) of interventions with the first group receiving manual therapy treatment, the second a sham treatment and the third, classic physiotherapy (stretching exercises, TENS and massage). The effectiveness of each treatment was evaluated using an optoelectronic system for recording and analysis of gait (kinetic and kinematic data). Patients overall showed an impaired gait pattern with a difference in kinetic and kinematic data between the left and the right side. Following the application of the above-named interventions, only the group that received manual therapy showed a tendency towards symmetry between the right and left side. In patients suffering from chronic low back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, the application of five manual therapy sessions seems to produce a tendency towards symmetry in gait.

To examine the effectiveness of Neuromobilization Exercises (NE) on pain, grip and pinch strength, two-point discrimination, motor and sensory distal latency, symptom severity, and functional status using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS). Major electronic databases were searched from inception up to September 2021 for randomized trials comparing the effects of NE with or without other interventions against no treatment, surgery, or other interventions in patients with CTS. Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects inverse variance model according to the outcome of interest and comparison group. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro and quality of evidence with the GRADE approach. Twenty-five articles were included and sixteen of them demonstrated high methodological quality. NE was superior to no treatment on pain (very low-quality evidence; SMD = −2.36, 95% CI −4.31 to −0.41). NE was superior to no treatment on the functional scale of the BCTQ (low-quality evidence; SMD = −1.27 95% CI −1.60 to −0.94). Most importantly, NE did not demonstrate evidence of clinical effectiveness. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests that there are no clinical benefits of NE in patients with mild to moderate CTS.

Background: Telerehabilitation to guide self-management has been shown to be a feasible care strategy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a blended web-based rehabilitation program enhanced with outdoor physical activity (BWR-OPA) and consultation versus an OPA (usual care) program in KOA patients. Methods: Forty-four KOA participants were prescribed to follow the programs five times/week for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was self-reported physical function, measured by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The secondary outcomes were pain, PA, function (timed up-and-go (TUG) test, 30 s chair rise test (30 s CRT)), psychological functioning and QoL. Results: There was a significant difference between the groups’ KOOSs for pain and symptom subscales at the 6- and 12-week post-intervention assessments compared to baseline (p < 0.005) favoring the BWR-OPA group. There was a superior improvement in PA in the BWR-OPA training group (p < 0.05). Statistical and clinical improvements were found (p < 0.001) with effect sizes over 2.0 for objective measures of function. Similar improvements were recorded over time (p < 0.005) at 12 weeks for QoL, KOOS subscales for ADL, QoL and sports/recreation and psychological functioning for both groups. Conclusions: A blended web-based self-managed care program with outdoor PA was superior in many respects to usual care in KOA participants.

We aimed to evaluate the hypoalgesic effect of an elbow flexion low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLRE–BFR) when compared to high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) with sham-BFR in healthy individuals. Forty healthy young adults (17 women), with a mean age ± SD: 26.6 ± 6.8 years, and mean body mass index ± SD: 23.6 ± 2.7 were randomly assigned to either an LLRE–BFR (30% 1 repetition maximum, RM) or an HLRE with sham-BFR group (70% of 1 RM). Blood pressure and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were measured pre- and post-exercise intervention. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded after each set. There were non-significant between-group changes in PPT at the dominant biceps (−0.61, 95%CI: −1.92 to 0.68) with statistically significant reductions between pre- and post-exercise in LLRE–BFR (effect size, d = 0.88) and HLRE-BFR (effect size, d = 0.52). No within- or between-group differences were recorded in PPT at non-exercising sites of measurement. No mediating effects of changes in blood pressure or RPE on the changes in pressure pain threshold were observed. LLRE–BFR produced a similar hypoalgesic effect locally compared to HLRE and can be used as an alternative intervention to decrease pain sensitivity when HLRE is contraindicated or should be avoided.