Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions for Shoulder Pain (original) (raw)

To improve appropriate use of rehabilitation interventions for knee pain through the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched up to July 1, 2000; the start dates were not reported. PEDro and the registries of the Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group were also searched. The references of the included studies were examined for relevant studies and content experts were contacted for additional studies. Inclusion was limited to articles published in full in English, French or Spanish. Study selection Study designs of evaluations included in the review Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials, case-control and cohort studies were eligible. Specific interventions included in the review Rehabilitation interventions for knee pain. The interventions included massage, thermal therapy (hot or cold packs), electrical stimulation, electromyographic feedback, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), therapeutic ultrasound, therapeutic exercises, and combinations of these rehabilitation interventions. Concurrent treatments were allowed if they were given in the same way to the experimental and control groups. Participants included in the review Participants with knee conditions were eligible. The knee conditions included chondromalacia patellae (patellofemoral syndrome), postsurgical conditions, knee osteoarthritis and tendinitis. Postsurgery knee conditions included meniscectomy, total knee replacement, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and arthroscopic surgery. Rheumatoid arthritis was excluded. Outcomes assessed in the review The outcomes of interest were functional status, pain, ability to work, patient global assessment, patient satisfaction and quality of life. How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made? Two reviewers independently appraised the titles and abstracts of the literature search, using a checklist with a priori defined selection criteria. Relevant studies were retrieved and the full articles were assessed for inclusion by two independent reviewers. Assessment of study quality Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad 5-point validated scale. Randomisation and double-blinding were assigned two points each, while one point was given for the description of withdrawals (see Other Publications of Related Interest nos.1-2). Two reviewers independently performed the quality assessment. Any differences were resolved by consensus.