Tuntland Hanne, Kjeken Ingvild, Nordheim Lena V, Falzon Louise, Jamtvedt Gro, Hagen Kåre Birger
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bergen University College, Haugeveien 28, Bergen, Norway, 5005.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;2009(4):CD006729. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006729.pub2.
Provision of assistive technology is a widely used intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Assistive technology is any item used to increase or maintain functional ability in individuals with disabilities. It includes a wide range of products, from low-technology devices to technologically complex equipment. Yet, there are few systematic reviews on the effectiveness of assistive technology in this population.
To assess the benefits of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in terms of improving functional ability and reducing pain, and to assess potential adverse effects in terms of psychological discomfort, personal injury or material damage related to device use.
We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, and OTseeker (to October 2008). In addition, we scanned reference lists, sought grey literature, and had personally communicated with authors. We updated the literature searches in January 2009.
Included study designs were randomised controlled trials, clinical controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series where the effectiveness of assistive technology was evaluated. In addition, comparative observational studies were included if addressing adverse effects.
Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.
Only one randomised controlled trial with 29 participants was included. The study compared the use of an eye drop device to a standard bottle in people with rheumatoid arthritis suffering from persistent dry eyes. The study was considered to have low quality of evidence. The proportions with observed difficulties when using the device to squeeze out drops and getting the drops in the eyes were 10% and 14%, respectively. This compared to 52% and 52% when using the standard bottle (P = 0.001; P = 0.003, respectively). The proportions of participants reporting difficulties with squeezing the bottle, controlling the number of drops, and aiming the drops when using the device were 40%, 44%, and 46% respectively, while using the standard bottle the proportions with difficulties were 72%, 84%, and 76% (P = 0.001; P = 0.003; P = 0.031, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. Thus, there is very limited evidence for the effect of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis and, therefore, an urgent need for high-quality research addressing the effectiveness of commonly used interventions.
提供辅助技术是一种广泛应用于类风湿关节炎患者的干预措施。辅助技术是指用于提高或维持残疾个体功能能力的任何物品。它包括从低技术设备到技术复杂设备的广泛产品。然而,关于辅助技术在这一人群中的有效性的系统评价很少。
评估辅助技术对成年类风湿关节炎患者在改善功能能力和减轻疼痛方面的益处,并评估与设备使用相关的心理不适、人身伤害或物质损害方面的潜在不良影响。
我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane 中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、澳大利亚医学文献数据库(AMED)、科学引文索引(ISI Web of Science)、循证物理治疗数据库(PEDro)和职业治疗检索数据库(OTseeker)(截至2008年10月)。此外,我们查阅了参考文献列表,查找灰色文献,并与作者进行了个人交流。我们于2009年1月更新了文献检索。
纳入的研究设计包括随机对照试验、临床对照试验、前后对照研究以及评估辅助技术有效性的中断时间序列研究。此外,如果涉及不良影响,则纳入比较观察性研究。
两位作者独立选择试验、提取数据并评估研究质量。联系研究者以获取缺失信息。
仅纳入了一项有29名参与者的随机对照试验。该研究比较了类风湿关节炎伴持续性干眼患者使用滴眼器与标准滴眼瓶的情况。该研究被认为证据质量较低。使用滴眼器挤出滴眼液和将滴眼液滴入眼中时出现困难的比例分别为10%和14%。相比之下,使用标准滴眼瓶时这两个比例均为52%(分别为P = 0.001;P = 0.003)。使用滴眼器时报告在挤压瓶子、控制滴数和对准滴液方面有困难的参与者比例分别为40%、44%和46%,而使用标准滴眼瓶时出现困难的比例分别为72%、84%和76%(分别为P = 0.001;P = 0.003;P = 0.031)。
仅有一项试验符合本综述的纳入标准。因此,关于辅助技术对成年类风湿关节炎患者疗效的证据非常有限,因此迫切需要开展高质量研究以探讨常用干预措施的有效性。