Clijsen Ron, Stoop Rahel, Hohenauer Erich, Aerenhouts Dirk, Clarys Peter, Deflorin Carlina, Taeymans Jan
Rehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Rehabilitation and Exercise Science Group, Department of Business Economics, Health, and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Landquart/Manno, Switzerland; International University of Applied Sciences THIM, Landquart, Switzerland; Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Health, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Berne, Switzerland.
Rehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Rehabilitation and Exercise Science Group, Department of Business Economics, Health, and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Landquart/Manno, Switzerland.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Mar;103(3):505-522. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.06.015. Epub 2021 Jul 18.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of local heat applications (LHAs) in individuals with acute or chronic musculoskeletal disorders. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Physiotherapy Evidence databases up to December 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Studies incorporating adults with any kind of musculoskeletal issues treated by LHA compared with any treatment other than heat were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed the methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: LHA showed beneficial immediate effects to reduce pain vs no treatment (P<.001), standard therapy (P=.020), pharmacologic therapy (P<.001), and placebo/sham (P=.044). Physical function was restored after LHA compared with no treatment (P=.025) and standard therapy (P=.006), whereas disability improved directly after LHA compared with pharmacologic therapy (P=.003) and placebo/sham (P<.028). Quality of life was improved directly after LHA treatment compared with exercise therapy (P<.021). Range of motion increased and stiffness decreased after LHA treatment compared with pharmacologic therapy (P=.009, P<.001) and placebo/sham (P<.001, P=.023). The immediate superior effects of LHA on muscular strength could be observed compared with no treatment (P<.001), cold (P<.001), and placebo/sham (P=.023). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with acute musculoskeletal disorders might benefit from using LHA as an adjunct therapy. However, the studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a high heterogeneity and mostly an unclear risk of bias.
目的：本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估局部热疗（LHA）对急性或慢性肌肉骨骼疾病患者的有效性。 数据来源：截至2019年12月，对MEDLINE、Cochrane对照试验注册库、《当代护理与联合健康文献》以及物理治疗证据数据库进行了电子检索。 研究选择：纳入了将接受LHA治疗的患有任何类型肌肉骨骼问题的成年人与除热疗以外的任何治疗进行比较的研究。 数据提取：两位作者使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具独立进行方法学质量评估。 数据综合：与不治疗（P<0.001）、标准治疗（P=0.020）、药物治疗（P<0.001）和安慰剂/假治疗（P=0.044）相比，LHA显示出减轻疼痛的有益即时效果。与不治疗（P=0.025）和标准治疗（P=0.006）相比，LHA后身体功能得到恢复，而与药物治疗（P=0.003）和安慰剂/假治疗（P<0.028）相比，LHA后残疾情况直接得到改善。与运动疗法相比，LHA治疗后生活质量直接得到改善（P<0.021）。与药物治疗（P=0.009，P<0.001）和安慰剂/假治疗（P<0.001，P=0.023）相比，LHA治疗后关节活动范围增加，僵硬程度降低。与不治疗（P<0.001）、冷疗（P<0.001）和安慰剂/假治疗（P=0.023）相比，可观察到LHA对肌肉力量有即时的优越效果。 结论：急性肌肉骨骼疾病患者可能受益于将LHA作为辅助治疗。然而，本荟萃分析中纳入的研究显示出高度异质性，且大多存在偏倚风险不明确的情况。
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014-4-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-5-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005-4-18
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-4-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011-12-7
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005
Front Rehabil Sci. 2024-7-4
Front Physiol. 2023-1-5
Zotero 插件