Aims: To assess the effectiveness of a variety of physical treatments in the management of tension-type headache (TTH) in children. Methods: This review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42014015290). Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that examined the effects of all treatments with a physical component in the management of TTH in children and compared these treatments to a placebo intervention, no intervention, or a controlled comparison intervention were included. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) criteria for bias assessment and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria were used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. The outcome measures were pain, functioning, and quality of life. Only RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. Results: An initial search produced 10,464 published articles. Of these, 17 were relevant trials, including 1,815 participants. The overall GRADE rating of the included studies was moderate, and 11 of the 17 studies could be used in the meta-analyses. The effectiveness of physical treatments in terms of a reduction of pain of 50% or more showed a risk ratio (RR) of 2.37 (95% CI: 1.69 to 3.33). Relaxation training was the most evaluated intervention and proved to be significantly effective (RR: 3.00 [95% CI: 1.94 to 4.63]). In children having TTH combined with temporomandibular disorders, occlusal appliances were effective (RR: 2.58 [95% CI: 1.37 to 4.85]). Conclusion: This review supports the use of physical treatments to reduce pain in children with TTH.
LINK
AIM: To systematically review the available literature on the diagnostic accuracy of questionnaires and measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms.DESIGN: Articles were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) was established for measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in an adult population. The databases searched were PubMed (1966-2018), Cochrane (1898-2018) and Cinahl (1988-2018). Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for criterion validity. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were applied to establish the level of evidence per measurement instrument.RESULTS: From 3450 articles identified, 31 articles were included in this review. Eleven measurement instruments for migraine were identified, of which the ID-Migraine is recommended with a moderate level of evidence and a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78). Six measurement instruments examined both migraine and tension-type headache and only the Headache Screening Questionnaire - Dutch version has a moderate level of evidence with a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.80) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.77-0.96) for migraine, and a sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21-0.54) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-0.92) for tension-type headache. For cervicogenic headache, only the cervical flexion rotation test was identified and had a very low level of evidence with a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.94) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.91).DISCUSSION: The current review is the first to establish an overview of the diagnostic accuracy of measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal factors. However, as most measurement instruments were validated in one study, pooling was not always possible. Risk of bias was a serious problem for most studies, decreasing the level of evidence. More research is needed to enhance the level of evidence for existing measurement instruments for multiple headaches.
DOCUMENT
Background: Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised. Study design: Systematic review. Method: The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered. Results: Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality. Conclusion: Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.
LINK
