DATA SOURCE: Six major databases were searched from inception till June 2015: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently rated methodological quality using the modified Downs and Black Scale and extracted and synthesized key findings (i.e., participant characteristics, study design, physical function and fitness outcomes, and adverse events).
RESULTS: Eight of 276 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which none showed high research quality. Four studies assessed physical function outcomes and 4 studies evaluated aerobic fitness as outcome measures. Significant improvements on these 2 outcomes were generally found. Other physical or fitness outcomes including body composition, muscular strength, and balance were rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is weak evidence supporting aquatic exercise training to improve physical function and aerobic fitness among adults with spinal cord injury. Suggestions for future research include reporting details of exercise interventions, evaluating other physical or fitness outcomes, and improving methodological quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The AGA is a new measured angle formed between the line from midglenoid to lateral end of the acromion with the line parallel to the glenoid surface. The AGA was measured in a group of 85 shoulders with RCT, 49 with GHOA and 103 non-RCT/GHOA control shoulders. The AGA was compared with other radiological parameters, such as, the critical shoulder angle (CSA), the acromion index (AI) and the acromiohumeral interval (AHI). Correlational and regression analysis were performed using SPSS 20.
RESULTS: The mean AGA was 50.9° (45.2-56.5°) in the control group, 53.3° (47.6-59.1°) in RCT group and 45.5° (37.7-53.2°) in OA group. Among patients with AGA > 51.5°, 61% were in the RCT group and among patients with AGA < 44.5°, 56% were in OA group. Pearson correlation analysis had shown significant correlation between AGA and CSA ( r = 0.925, p < 0.001). It was also significant of AHI in RCT group with mean 6.6 mm (4.7-8.5 mm) and significant AI in OA group with mean 0.68 (0.57-0.78) with p value < 0.001 respectively.
CONCLUSION: The AGA method of measurement is an excellent predictive parameter for diagnosing RCT and GHOA.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore a simple, easy, economical method of PRP preparation that is practical for clinical use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Sports Medicine Clinic at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Participants were healthy postgraduate students and staff at the Sports Medicine Department. The PRP was prepared using a single centrifugation technique. Leukocyte and platelet levels were compared with that of a whole blood baseline and a commercial preparation kit.
RESULTS: The PRP produced using this technique contained significantly higher mean platelet (1725.0 vs. 273.9 x 109/L) and leukocyte (33.6 vs. 7.7 x 109/L) levels compared with whole blood. There was no significant difference in the mean platelet and leukocyte levels between the PRP produced in this study and by a commercial PRP system.
CONCLUSIONS: A single-centrifugation protocol using readily available materials in a typical clinical setting could produce PRP of comparable quality to those of a commercial PRP production system.
METHODOLOGY: Pubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4-8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.
CONCLUSION: While clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.