↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
79 tweeters
facebook
15 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
738 Mendeley
Title
Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010853.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith M Smart, Benedict M Wand, Neil E O'Connell

Abstract

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful and disabling condition that usually manifests in response to trauma or surgery. When it occurs, it is associated with significant pain and disability. It is thought to arise and persist as a consequence of a maladaptive pro-inflammatory response and disturbances in sympathetically-mediated vasomotor control, together with maladaptive peripheral and central neuronal plasticity. CRPS can be classified into two types: type I (CRPS I) in which a specific nerve lesion has not been identified, and type II (CRPS II) where there is an identifiable nerve lesion. Guidelines recommend the inclusion of a variety of physiotherapy interventions as part of the multimodal treatment of people with CRPS, although their effectiveness is not known. To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for treating the pain and disability associated with CRPS types I and II. We searched the following databases from inception up to 12 February 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDro, Web of Science, DARE and Health Technology Assessments, without language restrictions, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapy interventions for treating pain and disability in people CRPS. We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress. We included RCTs of physiotherapy interventions (including manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, electrotherapy, physiotherapist-administered education and cortically directed sensory-motor rehabilitation strategies) employed in either a stand-alone fashion or in combination, compared with placebo, no treatment, another intervention or usual care, or of varying physiotherapy interventions compared with each other in adults with CRPS I and II. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient-centred outcomes of pain intensity and functional disability. Two review authors independently evaluated those studies identified through the electronic searches for eligibility and subsequently extracted all relevant data from the included RCTs. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments and rated the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 18 RCTs (739 participants) that tested the effectiveness of a broad range of physiotherapy-based interventions. Overall, there was a paucity of high quality evidence concerning physiotherapy treatment for pain and disability in people with CRPS I. Most included trials were at 'high' risk of bias (15 trials) and the remainder were at 'unclear' risk of bias (three trials). The quality of the evidence was very low or low for all comparisons, according to the GRADE approach.We found very low quality evidence that graded motor imagery (GMI; two trials, 49 participants) may be useful for improving pain (0 to 100 VAS) (mean difference (MD) -21.00, 95% CI -31.17 to -10.83) and functional disability (11-point numerical rating scale) (MD 2.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.48), at long-term (six months) follow-up, in people with CRPS I compared to usual care plus physiotherapy; very low quality evidence that multimodal physiotherapy (one trial, 135 participants) may be useful for improving 'impairment' at long-term (12 month) follow-up compared to a minimal 'social work' intervention; and very low quality evidence that mirror therapy (two trials, 72 participants) provides clinically meaningful improvements in pain (0 to 10 VAS) (MD 3.4, 95% CI -4.71 to -2.09) and function (0 to 5 functional ability subscale of the Wolf Motor Function Test) (MD -2.3, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.72) at long-term (six month) follow-up in people with CRPS I post stroke compared to placebo (covered mirror).There was low to very low quality evidence that tactile discrimination training, stellate ganglion block via ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy compared to placebo, and manual lymphatic drainage combined with and compared to either anti-inflammatories and physical therapy or exercise are not effective for treating pain in the short-term in people with CRPS I. Laser therapy may provide small clinically insignificant, short-term, improvements in pain compared to interferential current therapy in people with CRPS I.Adverse events were only rarely reported in the included trials. No trials including participants with CRPS II met the inclusion criteria of this review. The best available data show that GMI and mirror therapy may provide clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function in people with CRPS I although the quality of the supporting evidence is very low. Evidence of the effectiveness of multimodal physiotherapy, electrotherapy and manual lymphatic drainage for treating people with CRPS types I and II is generally absent or unclear. Large scale, high quality RCTs are required to test the effectiveness of physiotherapy-based interventions for treating pain and disability of people with CRPS I and II. Implications for clinical practice and future research are considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 738 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 734 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 149 20%
Student > Bachelor 115 16%
Student > Postgraduate 62 8%
Other 56 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 7%
Other 157 21%
Unknown 144 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 237 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 172 23%
Neuroscience 28 4%
Psychology 27 4%
Social Sciences 22 3%
Other 82 11%
Unknown 170 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2021.
All research outputs
#498,346
of 19,918,818 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,053
of 11,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,583
of 276,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,918,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.