METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus databases to retrieve articles published from 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies comparing different strategies in managing overweight and obesity among schoolchildren (6 to 12 years of age) were included. The main outcomes of interest were reductions in weight related variables included anthropometry and body composition measurements. All variables were analysed using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were reviewed, 13 were RCTs and one was a quasi-experimental study. The risk of bias for randomisation was low risk for all of RCTs except for one, which was unclear. The risk of bias for randomisation was high for the quasi-experimental study. Most interventions incorporated lifestyle changes and behavioural strategies such as coping and problem solving skills with family involvement. The meta-analyses did not show significant effects of the intervention in reducing weight related outcomes when compared with controls.
CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses of the selected studies did not show significant effects of the interventions on weight related outcomes among overweight and obese schoolchildren when compared with controls. The role of interdisciplinary team approaches with family involvement using behaviour and lifestyle strategies to curb obesity among schoolchildren is important.
Patients and Methods: Fifty-six patients were allocated into either the Rehabilitation Protocol Group (RPG) or the Control Group (CG) by a computer-generated random number. The patients in the RPG performed the strengthening exercises of the LLRP and followed the instruction of daily care (IDC). The patients in the CG only followed the IDC as a usual care. Gait Speed Test, quality of life, and BMI were taken at pre-test and post-test measurements. Paired samples t-test and two way mixed analysis of variance were used to analyze the change of BMI within and compare the difference of BMI between the groups, respectively. Wilcoxon signed ranked test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to analyze the changes of quality of life and functional capacity within and compare the differences of quality of life and functional capacity between the groups, respectively.
Results: The patients in the RPG reported a significant reduction in BMI (p = 0.025), improvement in quality of life (p ≤ 0.001), and functional capacity (p ≤ 0.001) within group. The patients in the CG also reported a significant improvements in quality of life (p < 0.05). The improvement in quality of life score was greater in the patients with RPG than the CG (p = 0.053).
Conclusion: The progressive resistance strength training of LLRP is effective in terms of reducing BMI, improving quality of life and functional capacity.
Trial Registration: Name: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. Number: IRCT20191221045846N3. Enrollment of first participant: 27-07-2020.
METHODS AND DESIGN: A randomised, single blind controlled trial will be conducted. Twenty-eight patients aged 18 years and above with a recent grade-2 hamstring injury will be invited to take part. Participants will be randomised to receive either autologous PRP injection with rehabilitation programme, or rehabilitation programme only. Participants will be followed up at day three of study and then weekly for 16 weeks. At each follow up visit, participants will be assessed on readiness to return-to-play using a set of criteria. The primary end-point is when participants have fulfilled the return-to-play criteria or end of 16 weeks.The main outcome measure of this study is the duration to return-to-play after injury.
CONCLUSION: This study protocol proposes a rigorous and potential significant evaluation of PRP use for grade-2 hamstring injury. If proven effective such findings could be of great benefit for patients with similar injuries.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN66528592.
AIM: To compare the effects of LLLT and HILT as adjuncts to rehabilitation exercises (LL + EX and HL + EX) on clinical outcomes in KOA.
METHODS: Thirty-four adults with mild-to-moderate KOA were randomly allocated to either LL + EX or HL + EX (n = 17 each). Both groups underwent their respective intervention weekly for twelve weeks: LL + EX (400 mW, 830 nm, 10 to 12 J/cm2, and 400 J per session) or HL + EX (5 W, 1064 nm, 19 to 150 J/cm2, and 3190 J per session). The laser probe was placed vertically in contact with the knee and moved in a slow-scan manner on the antero-medial/lateral sides of the knee joint. Participants' Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), active knee flexion, and Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG) were assessed.
RESULTS: Post intervention, both groups showed improvements in their KOOS, NPRS, active knee flexion, and TUG scores compared to baseline (p < 0.01). The mean difference of change in KOOS, NPRS, and active knee flexion scores for the HL + EX group surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. In contrast, the LL + EX group only demonstrated clinical significance for the NPRS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating HILT as an adjunct to usual KOA rehabilitation led to significantly higher improvements in pain, physical function, and knee-related disability compared to LLLT applied in scanning mode.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-eight patients will be randomised to receive under ultrasound guidance either a single injection of leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or normal saline. All patients will undergo a standardised hamstring rehabilitation programme under the supervision of a sports physiotherapist. Outcome data will be collected before intervention (baseline), and thereafter on a weekly basis. The primary outcome measure is the duration to return-to-play. It is defined as the duration (in days) from the date on which the injury occurred until the patients were pain-free, able to perform the active knee extension test and have regained hamstring muscle strength. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of pain intensity and the effect of pain on to day-to-day functions using the self-reported Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire. Both the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and thereafter once a week until return to play. Also, hamstring injury recurrence within the first 6 months after recovery will be monitored via telephone. The results of this study will provide insights into the effect of LR-PRP in muscle and may help to identify the best PRP application protocol for muscle injuries.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval were obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76844299.
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.