Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Cheung WKW, Wu IXY, Sit RWS, Ho RST, Wong CHL, Wong SYS, Chung VCH
Physiotherapy · 18 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2019-06-20 · Physiotherapy · vol. 106 · págs. 24–35
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 29 citas · más que el 54% de estudios similares · 0.6× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 51 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Peripheral Nerve Disorders · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Palabras clave
- carpal tunnel syndrome, low-level laser therapy, splinting, conservative treatment, analgesia, symptom severity, functional status, non-surgical management
- MeSH
- humans, carpal tunnel syndrome, low-level light therapy
7 autores
- William K.W. Cheung🇭🇰Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Irene Xin Yin Wu🇨🇳Central South University
- Regina Wing Shan Sit🇭🇰Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Robin S.T. Ho🇭🇰Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Charlene H. L. Wong🇭🇰Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Samuel Yeung Shan Wong🇭🇰Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Vincent CH Chung🇭🇰 · autor de correspondenciaChinese University of Hong Kong
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Splinting is recommended by various organisations as a non-surgical first-line treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), despite the limited evidence supporting its effectiveness. Previous studies on the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) have reported mixed results, and this systematic review aimed to resolve this controversy.
Objective
To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) for evaluating the effectiveness of LLLT compared with other conservative treatments for CTS.
Methods
Eighteen electronic databases were searched for potential randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs evaluating LLLT or other non-surgical treatments as an add-on to splinting were included. Included RCTs measured at least one of the following three outcomes with validated instruments: pain, symptom severity and functional status.
Results
Six RCTs (418 patients) were included. NMA suggested that LLLT plus splinting has the highest probability (75%) of pain reduction, compared with sham laser plus splinting (61%), ultrasound plus splinting (57%) and splinting alone (8%). However, while LLLT plus splinting is significantly more effective than sham laser plus splinting for pain reduction, the magnitude is not clinically significant (Visual Analogue Scale mean difference -0.53cm, 95% confidence interval -1.01 to -0.05cm; P=0.03, I2=25%). The effect of LLLT plus splinting on symptom severity and functional status was not superior to splinting alone.
Conclusion
The use of LLLT in addition to splinting for the management of CTS is not recommended, as LLLT offers limited additional benefits over splining alone in terms of pain reduction, reduction of symptom severity or improved functional status. PROSPERO for systematic reviews and meta-analyses registration number CRD42017082650.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.