Patricia Branco Mills1, Heather Finlayson2, Malgorzata Sudol2, Russell O'Connor2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada patricia.mills@vch.ca. 2. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of adjunct therapies following botulinum toxin injections for limb spasticity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases were searched for English language human studies from 1980 to 21 May 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials assessing adjunct therapies postbotulinum toxin injection for treatment of spasticity were included. Of the 268 studies screened, 17 met selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and graded according to Sackett's levels of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten adjunct therapies were identified. Evidence suggests that adjunct use of electrical stimulation, modified constraint-induced movement therapy, physiotherapy (all Level 1), casting and dynamic splinting (both Level 2) result in improved Modified Ashworth Scale scores by at least 1 grade. There is Level 1 and 2 evidence that adjunct taping, segmental muscle vibration, cyclic functional electrical stimulation, and motorized arm ergometer may not improve outcomes compared with botulinum toxin injections alone. There is Level 1 evidence that casting is better than taping, taping is better than electrical stimulation and stretching, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy is better than electrical stimulation for outcomes including the Modified Ashworth Scale, range of motion and gait. All results are based on single studies. CONCLUSION: There is high level evidence to suggest that adjunct therapies may improve outcomes following botulinum toxin injection. No results have been confirmed by independent replication. All interventions would benefit from further study.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of adjunct therapies following botulinum toxin injections for limb spasticity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases were searched for English language human studies from 1980 to 21 May 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials assessing adjunct therapies postbotulinum toxin injection for treatment of spasticity were included. Of the 268 studies screened, 17 met selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and graded according to Sackett's levels of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten adjunct therapies were identified. Evidence suggests that adjunct use of electrical stimulation, modified constraint-induced movement therapy, physiotherapy (all Level 1), casting and dynamic splinting (both Level 2) result in improved Modified Ashworth Scale scores by at least 1 grade. There is Level 1 and 2 evidence that adjunct taping, segmental muscle vibration, cyclic functional electrical stimulation, and motorized arm ergometer may not improve outcomes compared with botulinum toxin injections alone. There is Level 1 evidence that casting is better than taping, taping is better than electrical stimulation and stretching, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy is better than electrical stimulation for outcomes including the Modified Ashworth Scale, range of motion and gait. All results are based on single studies. CONCLUSION: There is high level evidence to suggest that adjunct therapies may improve outcomes following botulinum toxin injection. No results have been confirmed by independent replication. All interventions would benefit from further study.
Authors: Natasha A Lannin; Louise Ada; Coralie English; Julie Ratcliffe; Steven G Faux; Mithu Palit; Senen Gonzalez; John Olver; Ian Cameron; Maria Crotty Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Raymond L Rosales; Jovita Balcaitiene; Hugues Berard; Pascal Maisonobe; Khean Jin Goh; Witsanu Kumthornthip; Mazlina Mazlan; Lydia Abdul Latif; Mary Mildred D Delos Santos; Chayaporn Chotiyarnwong; Phakamas Tanvijit; Odessa Nuez; Keng He Kong Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Celine Bonnyaud; Philippe Gallien; Pierre Decavel; Philippe Marque; Claire Aymard; Frédéric Pellas; Marie-Eve Isner; François Constant Boyer; François Muller; Jean-Christophe Daviet; Patrick Dehail; Brigitte Perrouin-Verbe; Nicolas Bayle; Emmanuel Coudeyre; Dominic Perennou; Isabelle Laffont; Jacques Ropers; Nabila-Yasmine Domingo-Saidji; Djamel Bensmail; Nicolas Roche Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gerard E Francisco; Wolfgang H Jost; Ganesh Bavikatte; Daniel S Bandari; Simon F T Tang; Michael C Munin; Joan Largent; Aubrey M Adams; Aleksej Zuzek; Alberto Esquenazi Journal: PM R Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.298