1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Efficacy of Neuromodulation Interventions for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To determine the efficacy and safety of a neuromodulation intervention regimen in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

          Patients and Methods

          Systematic searches were conducted in seven English databases. Randomized controlled trials of all neuromodulation interventions (both invasive and non-invasive) for the treatment of CIPN were selected. Group comparisons of differences between interventions and controls were also made. We divided the outcomes into immediate-term effect (≤3 weeks), short-term effect (3 weeks to ≤3 months), and long-term effect (>3 months).

          Results

          Sixteen studies and 946 patients with CIPN were included. Among immediate-term effects, neuromodulation interventions were superior to usual care for improving pain (SMD=−0.77, 95% CI −1.07~ 0.47), FACT-Ntx (MD = 5.35, 95% CI 2.84~ 7.87), and QOL (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.09~ 0.79) (moderate certainty); neuromodulation loaded with usual care was superior to usual care for improving pain (SMD=−0.47, 95% CI −0.71 ~ −0.23), and QOL (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 ~ 0.69) (moderate certainty). There were no statistically significant differences between the neuromodulation interventions regimen vs usual care in short- and long-term outcomes and neuromodulation vs sham stimulation from any outcome measure. There were mild adverse events such as pain at the site of stimulation and bruising, and no serious adverse events were reported.

          Conclusion

          Neuromodulation interventions had significant immediate-term efficacy in CIPN but had not been shown to be superior to sham stimulation; short-term and long-term efficacy could not be determined because there were too few original RCTs. Moreover, there are no serious adverse effects of this therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

              This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                jpr
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove
                1178-7090
                12 April 2024
                2024
                : 17
                : 1423-1439
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hematology and Oncology Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital , Beijing, People’s Republic of China
                [2 ]Tuina and Pain Management Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital , Beijing, People’s Republic of China
                [3 ]School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine , Beijing, People’s Republic of China
                [4 ]School of Life Science, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine , Beijing, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Miao Jiang, School of Life Science, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine , Gongchen Street, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613511072205, Email doctorjiang@139.com
                Shiyan Yan, School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Gongchen Street, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine , Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613521436209, Email yanshiyan0927@sina.com
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                448528
                10.2147/JPR.S448528
                11020285
                38628429
                44a6261b-3a43-4611-bbeb-89b739cebaef
                © 2024 Xu et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 10 November 2023
                : 19 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, References: 85, Pages: 17
                Categories
                Review

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                chemotherapy,peripheral neuropathy,neuromodulation,systematic review,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article