Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Konservative Maßnahmen zur Behandlung belastungsbedingter muskulotendinöser, ligamentärer und knöcherner Leistenschmerzen

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009565.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 06 junio 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones óseas, articulares y musculares

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Matheus O Almeida

    Correspondencia a: Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Centro de Estudos de Medicina Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil

    [email protected]

  • Brenda NG Silva

    Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Centro de Estudos de Medicina Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Régis B Andriolo

    Department of Public Health, Universidade do Estado do Pará, Belém, Brazil

  • Álvaro N Atallah

    Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Centro de Estudos de Medicina Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Maria S Peccin

    Department of Human Movement Sciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, Brazil

Contributions of authors

Co‐ordinating the review: MOA
Screening search results: MOA, RBA, BNGS
Undertaking manual searches: MOA, BNGS
Organizing retrieval of papers: MOA, MSP
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: MOA, ANA, MSP
Appraising quality of papers: MOA, RBA, BNGS
Abstracting data from papers: MOA, RBA, BNGS, MSP, ANA
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: MOA
Providing additional data about papers: MOA, MSP
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: MOA, MSP
Data management for the review: MOA, RBA, BNGS
Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan): MOA, RBA, BNGS
RevMan statistical data: MOA, RBA
Interpretation of data: MOA, RBA, BNGS, MSP, ANA
Statistical inferences: MOA, RBA
Writing the review: MOA, BNGS, RBA, MSP, ANA
Responsible for reading and checking review before submission: MA, RBA, BNGS, MSP, ANA

Matheus O Almeida is the guarantor of the review.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for valuable comments about this version of the review from Xavier Griffin, Helen Handoll and Gisela Sole. We also thank Per Hölmich, Adam Weir and Frank Backx for their attention and prompt return when contacted by email.

We also gratefully acknowledge Joanne Elliott who helped us with the development of the search strategies; and Helen Handoll and Gisela Sole for their helpful feedback at editorial review of the protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Jun 06

Conservative interventions for treating exercise‐related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain

Review

Matheus O Almeida, Brenda NG Silva, Régis B Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Maria S Peccin

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009565.pub2

2012 Jan 18

Conservative interventions for treating exercise‐related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain

Protocol

Matheus O Almeida, Brenda Nazaré Gomes Silva, Régis B Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Maria Stella Peccin

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009565

Differences between protocol and review

Type of outcome measures

The outcome 'successful treatment' was not planned in the protocol of this review, but it was assessed in both included studies. We considered it as a primary outcome in the review since pain (an outcome previously planned in the protocol) was one of the main points to classify the patients objectively.

'Maximum pain during sports' was another primary outcome included in the review that was not planned in the protocol. In the protocol, we planned to evaluate pain at rest, on palpation and during physical activity, but different forms of pain intensity were not listed. Therefore we added the phrase ‘regardless of the intensity’ to cover outcomes that approach different characteristics of the same aspect (pain), such as maximum pain during sports.

Keywords

MeSH

Flow diagram showing the reference screening and study selection.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow diagram showing the reference screening and study selection.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Patients' subjective global assessment (better or much better).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Patients' subjective global assessment (better or much better).

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 2 Maximum pain during sports.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 2 Maximum pain during sports.

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 4 Time to return to sports (weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 4 Time to return to sports (weeks).

Comparison 1. Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 'Successful treatment' Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Follow‐up 16 weeks, per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Patients' subjective global assessment (better or much better) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Follow‐up 16 weeks, per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Follow‐up 16 weeks, intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Return to sports Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy
Comparison 2. Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 'Successful treatment' Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Per‐protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Maximum pain during sports Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Return to sports Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Per protocol analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Time to return to sports (weeks) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy