Intervenciones conservadoras para el tratamiento del dolor de ingle óseo, ligamentoso y musculotendinoso relacionado con el ejercicio
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009565.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 06 junio 2013see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones óseas, articulares y musculares
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
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Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: MOA, MSP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 | |
| 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 | |
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
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Female; Humans; Male;
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.
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).
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.
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.
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).
| 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] | |
| 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 | |
