Sampath Kesava Kovanur, Mani Ramakrishnan, Miyamori Takayuki, Tumilty Steve
Centre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, New Zealand
Centre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Clin Rehabil. 2016 Dec;30(12):1141-1155. doi: 10.1177/0269215515622670. Epub 2015 Dec 22.
To determine whether manual therapy or exercise therapy or both is beneficial for people with hip osteoarthritis in terms of reduced pain, improved physical function and improved quality of life.
Databases such as Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTSDiscus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and SCOPUS were searched from their inception till September 2015. Two authors independently extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Standardised mean differences for outcome measures (pain, physical function and quality of life) were used to calculate effect sizes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest.
Seven trials (886 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. There was high quality evidence that exercise therapy was beneficial at post-treatment (pain-SMD-0.27,95%CI-0.5to-0.04;physical function-SMD-0.29,95%CI-0.47to-0.11) and follow-up (pain-SMD-0.24,95%CI- 0.41to-0.06; physical function-SMD-0.33,95%CI-0.5to-0.15). There was low quality evidence that manual therapy was beneficial at post-treatment (pain-SMD-0.71,95%CI-1.08to-0.33; physical function-SMD-0.71,95%CI-1.08to-0.33) and follow-up (pain-SMD-0.43,95%CI-0.8to-0.06; physical function-SMD-0.47,95%CI-0.84to-0.1). Low quality evidence indicated that combined treatment was beneficial at post-treatment (pain-SMD-0.43,95%CI-0.78to-0.08; physical function-SMD-0.38,95%CI-0.73to-0.04) but not at follow-up (pain-SMD0.25,95%CI-0.35to0.84; physical function-SMD0.09,95%CI-0.5to0.68). There was no effect of any interventions on quality of life.
An Exercise therapy intervention provides short-term as well as long-term benefits in terms of reduction in pain, and improvement in physical function among people with hip osteoarthritis. The observed magnitude of the treatment effect would be considered small to moderate.
确定手法治疗、运动疗法或两者联合治疗对于髋骨关节炎患者在减轻疼痛、改善身体功能和提高生活质量方面是否有益。
检索了Medline、AMED、EMBASE、CINAHL、SPORTSDiscus、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、科学网、物理治疗证据数据库和SCOPUS等数据库,检索时间从建库至2015年9月。两位作者独立提取并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。使用标准化均数差来计算结局指标(疼痛、身体功能和生活质量)的效应量。采用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估每个感兴趣结局的证据质量。
7项符合纳入标准的试验(886名参与者)纳入了荟萃分析。有高质量证据表明运动疗法在治疗后(疼痛-标准化均数差-0.27,95%置信区间-0.5至-0.04;身体功能-标准化均数差-0.29,95%置信区间-0.47至-0.11)和随访时(疼痛-标准化均数差-0.24,95%置信区间-0.41至-0.06;身体功能-标准化均数差-0.33,95%置信区间-0.5至-0.15)有益。有低质量证据表明手法治疗在治疗后(疼痛-标准化均数差-0.71,95%置信区间-1.08至-0.33;身体功能-标准化均数差-0.71,95%置信区间-1.08至-0.33)和随访时(疼痛-标准化均数差-0.43,95%置信区间-0.8至-0.06;身体功能-标准化均数差-0.47,95%置信区间-0.84至-0.1)有益。低质量证据表明联合治疗在治疗后(疼痛-标准化均数差-0.43,95%置信区间-0.78至-0.08;身体功能-标准化均数差-0.38,95%置信区间-0.73至-0.04)有益,但在随访时无益处(疼痛-标准化均数差0.25,95%置信区间-0.35至0.84;身体功能-标准化均数差0.09,95%置信区间-0.5至0.68)。任何干预措施对生活质量均无影响。
运动疗法干预对于髋骨关节炎患者在减轻疼痛和改善身体功能方面具有短期和长期益处。观察到的治疗效果大小为小到中度。