This study provided preliminary evidence of a short-term hypoalgesic effect of APUCM on craniofacial and cervical regions of patients with cervico-craniofacial pain of myofascial origin, suggesting that APUCM may cause an immediate nociceptive modulation in the trigeminocervical complex. We also observed a sympathoexcitatory response, which could be related to the hypoalgesic effect induced by the technique, but this aspect should be confirmed in future studies.

The present study was comprised of 43 patients (16 men) with cervicogenic headaches for over three months, diagnosed according to the International Classification of Diagnostic Criteria of Headaches (ICDH-II). The patients were randomly assigned to receive either manual therapy for the cervical region (usual care group) or additional manual therapy techniques to the temporomandibular region to additionally influence temporomandibular disorders (TMD). All patients were assessed prior to treatment, after six sessions of treatment, and at a six-month follow-up. The outcome criteria were: intensity of headaches measured on a colored analog scale, the Neck Disability Index (Dutch version), the Conti Anamnestic Questionnaire, noise registration at the mandibular joint using a stethoscope, the Graded Chronic Pain Status (Dutch version), mandibular deviation, range of mouth opening, and pressure/pain threshold of the masticatory muscles. The results indicate in the studied sample of cervicogenic headache patients, 44.1% had TMD. The group that received additional temporomandibular manual therapy techniques showed significantly decreased headache intensities and increased neck function after the treatment period. These improvements persisted during the treatment-free period (follow-up) and were not observed in the usual care group. This trend was also reflected on the questionnaires and the clinical temporomandibular signs. Based on these observations, we strongly believe that treatment of the temporomandibular region has beneficial effects for patients with cervicogenic headaches, even in the long-term.

Background

BackgroundOsteoarthritis of the knee is the most common cause for disability and limited mobility in the elderly, with considerable individual suffering and high direct and indirect disease-related costs. Nonsurgical interventions such as exercise, enhanced physical activity, and self-management have shown beneficial effects for pain reduction, physical function, and quality of life (QoL), but access to these treatments may be limited. Therefore, home therapy is strongly recommended. However, adherence to these programs is low. Patients report lack of motivation, feedback, and personal interaction as the main barriers to home therapy adherence. To overcome these barriers, electronic health (eHealth) is seen as a promising opportunity. Although beneficial effects have been shown in the literature for other chronic diseases such as chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, a systematic literature review on the efficacy of eHealth interventions for patients with osteoarthritis of knee is missing so far.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of eHealth-supported home exercise interventions with no or other interventions regarding pain, physical function, and health-related QoL in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro were systematically searched using the keywords osteoarthritis knee, eHealth, and exercise. An inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was carried out pooling standardized mean differences (SMDs) of individual studies. The Cochrane tool was used to assess risk of bias in individual studies, and the quality of evidence across studies was evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.ResultsThe literature search yielded a total of 648 results. After screening of titles, abstracts, and full-texts, seven randomized controlled trials were included. Pooling the data of individual studies demonstrated beneficial short-term (pain SMD=−0.31, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.04, low quality; QoL SMD=0.24, 95% CI 0.05-0.43, moderate quality) and long-term effects (pain −0.30, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.53, moderate quality; physical function 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.64, high quality; and QoL SMD=0.27, 95% CI 0.06-0.47, high quality).ConclusionseHealth-supported exercise interventions resulted in less pain, improved physical function, and health-related QoL compared with no or other interventions; however, these improvements were small (SMD<0.5) and may not make a meaningful difference for individual patients. Low adherence is seen as one limiting factor of eHealth interventions. Future research should focus on participatory development of eHealth technology integrating evidence-based principles of exercise science and ways of increasing patient motivation and adherence.

ObjectivesThe aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.SettingUniversity-initiated international survey.ParticipantsThe expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.ProceduresThe initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.ResultsResults suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.ConclusionsRecommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.Trial registration numberGerman Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777)