Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, ...and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Although supervised exercise therapy (SET) provides significant symptomatic benefit for patients with intermittent claudication (IC), it remains an underutilized tool. Widespread implementation of ...SET is restricted by lack of facilities and funding. Structured home-based exercise therapy (HBET) with an observation component (e.g., exercise logbooks, pedometers) and just walking advice (WA) are alternatives to SET. This is the second update of a review first published in 2006.
The primary objective was to provide an accurate overview of studies evaluating effects of SET programs, HBET programs, and WA on maximal treadmill walking distance or time (MWD/T) for patients with IC. Secondary objectives were to evaluate effects of SET, HBET, and WA on pain-free treadmill walking distance or time (PFWD/T), quality of life, and self-reported functional impairment.
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (December 16, 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 11). We searched the reference lists of relevant studies identified through searches for other potential trials. We applied no restriction on language of publication.
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing SET programs with HBET programs and WA in participants with IC. We excluded studies in which control groups did not receive exercise or walking advice (maintained normal physical activity). We also excluded studies comparing exercise with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, bypass surgery, or drug therapy.
Three review authors (DH, HF, and LG) independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed trials for risk of bias. Two other review authors (MvdH and JT) confirmed the suitability and methodological quality of trials. For all continuous outcomes, we extracted the number of participants, mean outcome, and standard deviation for each treatment group through the follow-up period, if available. We extracted Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 outcomes to assess quality of life, and Walking Impairment Questionnaire outcomes to assess self-reported functional impairment. As investigators used different scales to present results of walking distance and time, we standardized reported data to effect sizes to enable calculation of an overall standardized mean difference (SMD). We obtained summary estimates for all outcome measures using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
For this update, we included seven additional studies, making a total of 21 included studies, which involved a total of 1400 participants: 635 received SET, 320 received HBET, and 445 received WA. In general, SET and HBET programs consisted of three exercise sessions per week. Follow-up ranged from six weeks to two years. Most trials used a treadmill walking test to investigate effects of exercise therapy on walking capacity. However, two trials assessed only quality of life, functional impairment, and/or walking behavior (i.e., daily steps measured by pedometer). The overall methodological quality of included trials was moderate to good. However, some trials were small with respect to numbers of participants, ranging from 20 to 304.SET groups showed clear improvement in MWD/T compared with HBET and WA groups, with overall SMDs at three months of 0.37 (95% confidence interval CI 0.12 to 0.62; P = 0.004; moderate-quality evidence) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; P < 0.00001; high-quality evidence), respectively. This translates to differences in increased MWD of approximately 120 and 210 meters in favor of SET groups. Data show improvements for up to six and 12 months, respectively. The HBET group did not show improvement in MWD/T compared with the WA group (SMD 0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.05; P = 0.43; moderate-quality evidence).Compared with HBET, SET was more beneficial for PFWD/T but had no effect on quality of life parameters nor on self-reported functional impairment. Compared with WA, SET was more beneficial for PFWD/T and self-reported functional impairment, as well as for some quality of life parameters (e.g., physical functioning, pain, and physical component summary after 12 months), and HBET had no effect.Data show no obvious effects on mortality rates. Thirteen of the 1400 participants died, but no deaths were related to exercise therapy. Overall, adherence to SET was approximately 80%, which was similar to that reported with HBET. Only limited adherence data were available for WA groups.
Evidence of moderate and high quality shows that SET provides an important benefit for treadmill-measured walking distance (MWD and PFWD) compared with HBET and WA, respectively. Although its clinical relevance has not been definitively demonstrated, this benefit translates to increased MWD of 120 and 210 meters after three months in SET groups. These increased walking distances are likely to have a positive impact on the lives of patients with IC. Data provide no clear evidence of a difference between HBET and WA. Trials show no clear differences in quality of life parameters nor in self-reported functional impairment between SET and HBET. However, evidence is of low and very low quality, respectively. Investigators detected some improvements in quality of life favoring SET over WA, but analyses were limited by small numbers of studies and participants. Future studies should focus on disease-specific quality of life and other functional outcomes, such as walking behavior and physical activity, as well as on long-term follow-up.
Treadmill training, with or without body weight support using a harness, is used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of the Cochrane review first ...published in 2003 and updated in 2005 and 2014.
To determine if treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, improve walking ability, quality of life, activities of daily living, dependency or death, and institutionalisation or death, compared with other physiotherapy gait-training interventions after stroke. The secondary objective was to determine the safety and acceptability of this method of gait training.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 14 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 February 2017), CINAHL (1982 to 14 February 2017), AMED (1985 to 14 February 2017) and SPORTDiscus (1949 to 14 February 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and ongoing trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted trialists to identify further trials.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled and cross-over trials of treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, for the treatment of walking after stroke.
Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. The primary outcomes investigated were walking speed, endurance, and dependency.
We included 56 trials with 3105 participants in this updated review. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants had at least some walking difficulties and many could not walk without assistance. Overall, the use of treadmill training did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.02; 18 trials, 1210 participants; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.06 m/s (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 47 trials, 2323 participants; P < 0.0001; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 14.19 metres (95% CI 2.92 to 25.46; 28 trials, 1680 participants; P = 0.01; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow-up. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 12 trials, 954 participants; P = 0.50; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 21.64 metres (95% CI -4.70 to 47.98; 10 trials, 882 participants; P = 0.11; I² = 47%; low-quality evidence). In 38 studies with a total of 1571 participants who were independent in walking at study onset, the use of treadmill training increased the walking velocity significantly. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12; P < 0.00001; I
= 49%). There were insufficient data to comment on any effects on quality of life or activities of daily living. Adverse events and dropouts did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events.
Overall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training, with or without body weight support, are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve slightly in the short term. Specifically, people with stroke who are able to walk (but not people who are dependent in walking at start of treatment) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention with regard to walking speed and walking endurance. This review did not find, however, that improvements in walking speed and endurance may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations, or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory participants, but not in dependent walkers.
People with cancer undergoing active treatment experience numerous disease- and treatment-related adverse outcomes and poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Exercise interventions are ...hypothesized to alleviate these adverse outcomes. HRQoL and its domains are important measures of cancer survivorship, both during and after the end of active treatment for cancer.
To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise on overall HRQoL outcomes and specific HRQoL domains among adults with cancer during active treatment.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDRO, LILACS, SIGLE, SportDiscus, OTSeeker, Sociological Abstracts from inception to November 2011 with no language or date restrictions. We also searched citations through Web of Science and Scopus, PubMed's related article feature, and several websites. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and other reviews in the field.
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing exercise interventions with usual care or other type of non-exercise comparison intervention to maintain or enhance, or both, overall HRQoL or at least one distinct domain of HRQoL. Included trials tested exercise interventions that were initiated when adults with cancer were undergoing active cancer treatment or were scheduled to initiate treatment.
Five paired review authors independently extracted information on characteristics of included trials, data on effects of the intervention, and assessed risk of bias based on predefined criteria. Where possible, we performed meta-analyses for HRQoL and HRQoL domains for the reported difference between baseline values and follow-up values using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and a random-effects model by length of follow-up. We also reported the SMD at follow-up between the exercise and control groups. Because investigators used many different HRQoL and HRQoL domain instruments and often more than one for the same domain, we selected the more commonly used instrument to include in the SMD meta-analyses. We also report the mean difference for each type of instrument separately.
We included 56 trials with 4826 participants randomized to an exercise (n = 2286) or comparison (n = 1985) group. Cancer diagnoses in trial participants included breast, prostate, gynecologic, hematologic, and other. Thirty-six trials were conducted among participants who were currently undergoing active treatment for their cancer, 10 trials were conducted among participants both during and post active cancer treatment, and the remaining 10 trials were conducted among participants scheduled for active cancer treatment. Mode of exercise intervention differed across trials and included walking by itself or in combination with cycling, resistance training, or strength training; resistance training; strength training; cycling; yoga; or Qigong. HRQoL and its domains were assessed using a wide range of measures.The results suggest that exercise interventions compared with control interventions have a positive impact on overall HRQoL and certain HRQoL domains. Exercise interventions resulted in improvements in: HRQoL from baseline to 12 weeks' follow-up (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55) or when comparing difference in follow-up scores at 12 weeks (SMD 0.47; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.79); physical functioning from baseline to 12 weeks' follow-up (SMD 0.69; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.22) or 6 months (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.55); or when comparing differences in follow-up scores at 12 weeks (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45) or 6 months (SMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50); role function from baseline to 12 weeks' follow-up (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90) or when comparing differences in follow-up scores at 12 weeks (SMD 0.17; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.34) or 6 months (SMD 0.32; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61); and, in social functioning at 12 weeks' follow-up (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.05) or when comparing differences in follow-up scores at both 12 weeks (SMD 0.16; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27) and 6 months (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.44). Further, exercise interventions resulted in a decrease in fatigue from baseline to 12 weeks' follow-up (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.57 to -0.18) or when comparing difference in follow-up scores at follow-up of 12 weeks (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.31). Since there is consistency of findings on both types of measures (change scores and difference in follow-up scores) there is greater confidence in the robustness of these findings.When examining exercise effects by subgroups, exercise interventions had significantly greater reduction in anxiety for survivors with breast cancer than those with other types of cancer. Further, there was greater reduction in depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, and improvement in HRQoL, emotional wellbeing (EWB), physical functioning, and role function for cancer survivors diagnosed with cancers other than breast cancer but not for breast cancer. There were also greater improvements in HRQoL and physical functioning, and reduction in anxiety, fatigue, and sleep disturbances when prescribed a moderate or vigorous versus a mild exercise program.Results of the review need to be interpreted cautiously owing to the risk of bias. All the trials reviewed were at high risk for performance bias. In addition, the majority of trials were at high risk for detection, attrition, and selection bias.
This systematic review indicates that exercise may have beneficial effects at varying follow-up periods on HRQoL and certain HRQoL domains including physical functioning, role function, social functioning, and fatigue. Positive effects of exercise interventions are more pronounced with moderate- or vigorous-intensity versus mild-intensity exercise programs. The positive results must be interpreted cautiously because of the heterogeneity of exercise programs tested and measures used to assess HRQoL and HRQoL domains, and the risk of bias in many trials. Further research is required to investigate how to sustain positive effects of exercise over time and to determine essential attributes of exercise (mode, intensity, frequency, duration, timing) by cancer type and cancer treatment for optimal effects on HRQoL and its domains.
This consensus statement is an update of the 2010 American College of Sports Medicine position stand on exercise and type 2 diabetes. Since then, a substantial amount of research on select topics in ...exercise in individuals of various ages with type 2 diabetes has been published while diabetes prevalence has continued to expand worldwide. This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations. The document has been expanded to include physical activity, a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise, and reducing sedentary time. Various types of physical activity enhance health and glycemic management in people with type 2 diabetes, including flexibility and balance exercise, and the importance of each recommended type or mode are discussed. In general, the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans apply to all individuals with type 2 diabetes, with a few exceptions and modifications. People with type 2 diabetes should engage in physical activity regularly and be encouraged to reduce sedentary time and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks. Any activities undertaken with acute and chronic health complications related to diabetes may require accommodations to ensure safe and effective participation. Other topics addressed are exercise timing to maximize its glucose-lowering effects and barriers to and inequities in physical activity adoption and maintenance.
The uptake of evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice is suboptimal in osteoarthritis (OA) and other chronic diseases. Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) was launched in 2013 ...with the aim of implementing guidelines for the treatment of knee and hip OA in clinical care nationwide. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the effects of the GLA:D intervention from 2013 to 2015, using data from the national GLA:D registry.
Patients undergo education and supervised exercise delivered by trained physiotherapists. Outcomes evaluated at baseline, 3 and 12 months are pain intensity (0 to 100, best to worst), objective physical function (30-s chair-stand test and 40-m fast-paced walk test), physical activity (number of days per week being physically active for at least 30 min), quality of life (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) quality of life subscale, 0-100, worst to best), number of patients on painkillers and sick leave, and access to care according to guidelines.
Data from 9,825 participants from the GLA:D registry were utilised in the analyses. It was demonstrated that GLA:D improved pain intensity and quality of life by 12.4 points and 5.4 points at 3 months, and 13.7 points and 9.4 points at 12 months, respectively. Furthermore, physical function and physical activity improved (only at 3 months), fewer patients took painkillers following the treatment, and fewer patients were on sick leave at 12 months following GLA:D compared with the year prior to GLA:D. GLA:D is offered in all five health care regions in Denmark via 286 active GLA:D units, but the uptake in the Danish municipalities is still low with only 20% of the municipalities offering GLA:D.
Three years after its inception, GLA:D has been rolled out nationwide and has a significant impact not only on patient symptoms and physical function, but also on intake of painkillers and sick leave. The lifestyle changes introduced by education and supervised exercise were largely maintained at 1 year and may have the potential to also improve general health and reduce societal costs.
The purpose of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of an exercise rehabilitation program commencing during ICU admission and continuing into the outpatient setting compared with usual ...care on physical function and health-related quality of life in ICU survivors.
We conducted a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. One hundred and fifty participants were stratified and randomized to receive usual care or intervention if they were in the ICU for 5 days or more and had no permanent neurological insult. The intervention group received intensive exercises in the ICU and the ward and as outpatients. Participants were assessed at recruitment, ICU admission, hospital discharge and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Physical function was evaluated using the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (primary outcome), the Timed Up and Go Test and the Physical Function in ICU Test. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Short Form 36 Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2) and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Data were analyzed using mixed models.
The a priori enrollment goal was not reached. There were no between-group differences in demographic and hospital data, including acuity and length of acute hospital stay (LOS) (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score: 21 vs 19; hospital LOS: 20 vs 24 days). No significant differences were found for the primary outcome of 6MWT or any other outcomes at 12 months after ICU discharge. However, exploratory analyses showed the rate of change over time and mean between-group differences in 6MWT from first assessment were greater in the intervention group.
Further research examining the trajectory of improvement with rehabilitation is warranted in this population.
The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000776606.
PDF
