Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for psoriatic arthritis.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic arthritis affecting people with psoriasis. If untreated, it may lead to disability. Recommended drugs are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are the first choice bDMARDs. To assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in adults with psoriatic arthritis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal up to 28 March 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with PsA, comparing TNFi to placebo, physiotherapy, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, and cs/b/tsDMARDs. Major outcomes included clinical improvement, minimal disease activity, physical function, health-related quality of life, radiographic progression, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary comparison was TNFi versus placebo. The primary time point was 12 weeks for clinical improvement; 24 weeks for minimal disease activity, function, quality of life, and radiographic progression; and the end of the trial period for serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We included 25 RCTs randomizing 7857 participants. Four studies compared TNFi to methotrexate and one to ustekinumab in DMARD-naïve participants. In csDMARD-inadequate responders, 11 studies compared TNFi to placebo; four studies compared TNFi to placebo and ixekizumab, bimekizumab, tofacitinib, or upadacitinib; and three studies compared TNFi to ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab. Two studies compared different TNFi. We found no studies with b/tsDMARD-inadequate responders (b/tsDMARD-IR). No studies compared TNFi to NSAIDs, corticosteroids, or physiotherapy. Performance (32%), detection (56%) and reporting (80%) biases were at high or unclear risk across studies. Only one study had a low risk of bias in all domains. We limit reporting to the primary comparison, TNFi versus placebo. DMARD-naïve We found no studies comparing TNFi with placebo in DMARD-naïve participants. csDMARD-inadequate responders TNFi probably result in a large clinical improvement compared to placebo. At 12 weeks, 149/1926 (8%) participants in the placebo group showed a clinical improvement (ACR50) compared to 784/2141 (37%) participants in the TNFi group (risk ratio (RR) 5.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.98 to 7.96; I2 = 65%; 14 studies, 4067 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TNFi probably result in a higher proportion of participants in minimal disease activity. At 24 weeks, 95/1017 (9%) participants in the placebo group were in minimal disease activity compared to 428/1336 (32%) participants in the TNFi group (RR 3.76, 95% CI 2.39 to 5.92; I2 = 72%; 5 studies, 2353 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 weeks, TNFi may improve function compared to placebo. The mean change in function from baseline (assessed with the Health Assessment Questionnaire; score from 0 to 3, 0 = no disability; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 0.35) was -0.14 points with placebo and 0.33 points lower (0.41 lower to 0.25 lower) with TNFi (I2 = 72%; 8 studies, 2949 participants; low-certainty evidence). TNFi probably result in a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life. The mean change in quality of life from baseline (assessed with the Short Form 36-item Mental Component Summary questionnaire; score from 0 to 100, 100 = best score; MCID = 1.7) was 2.4 points with placebo and 3.29 points higher (2.18 points higher to 4.40 points higher) with TNFi (I2 = 52%; 8 studies, 2928 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TNFi probably slightly reduce radiographic progression. The mean change in radiographic progression (assessed with the Sharp/Van der Heijde-PsA score; scale from 0 to 528, 0 = no damage) was 0.25 points with placebo and 0.37 points lower with TNFi (0.48 lower to 0.25 lower) (I2 = 32%; 7 studies, 2478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 weeks. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty for clinical improvement, minimal disease activity, quality of life, and radiographic progression due to risk of bias. For function, we downgraded the evidence to low certainty for risk of bias and imprecision. TNFi may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events, but may slightly increase withdrawals due to adverse events, compared to placebo. At the end of follow-up: 56/1826 participants (3%) given placebo and 69/1900 (4%) participants given TNFi experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 3866 participants; low-certainty evidence); and 35/1926 (2%) participants given placebo and 65/2140 (3%) given TNFi withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.33; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 4066 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for risk of bias and imprecision. In csDMARD-inadequate responders, moderate-certainty evidence showed that TNFi probably result in a large clinical improvement, lower disease activity, small decrease in radiographic progression, and better quality of life compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence showed that TNFi may lead to a slight improvement in physical function compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that TNFi may lead to a slight increase in withdrawals due to adverse events, whereas they may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo. No trials assessed TNFi compared to placebo in DMARD-naïve participants or in b/tsDMARD-IR.

Cagnotto G ，Bruschettini M ，Stróżyk A ，Scirè CA ，Compagno M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a rheumatic disorder that causes chronic joint inflammation beginning before the age of 16 years. Pharmacological treatment necessary to prevent joint destruction and functional impairment includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) like methotrexate (MTX), and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, anakinra, and tocilizumab. More recently, targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) like tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved for the treatment of JIA. To assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in children with JIA. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to 28 February 2024, with no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and data from the randomized part of withdrawal trials conducted in individuals with JIA where TNFi were compared to placebo, MTX, NSAIDs, other bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, or other TNFi. Our major outcomes were treatment response, pain, function, participant global assessment of well-being (disease activity), remission, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. At least two review authors performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessment. The primary comparison was TNFi versus placebo. The primary time point was up to 16 weeks and up to the end of the trials for efficacy and safety outcomes, respectively. We included nine studies with 678 participants (80% females) with JIA. The mean age of participants ranged from 8 to 15 years, and the mean duration of symptoms ranged from 0.8 years to 6.7 years. Seven studies compared TNFi to placebo (570 participants), and two studies compared TNFi combined with MTX to MTX alone (108 participants). We identified no studies investigating the other predefined comparisons. Only two studies had a low risk of bias in all domains, while five studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain, predominantly other bias. Two studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, and two studies were at unclear risk of detection bias. TNFi versus placebo Benefits at up to 16 weeks Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) suggests that treatment with TNFi may increase the likelihood of achieving a treatment response, defined as pedACR70 (34% compared to 14% with placebo) (risk ratio [RR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 4.14; 4 studies, 245 participants). The evidence is very uncertain (downgraded for indirectness and imprecision) for the effect of TNFi on pain, with mean pain scores (visual analogue scale [VAS] 0 to 100, 0 no pain, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 15 mm) lower with TNFi (11 mm) compared to placebo (33 mm) (mean difference [MD] 22 mm, 95% CI 50 mm lower to 5.7 mm higher; 2 studies, 72 participants). Similarly, the effect of TNFi on function (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [CHAQ], 0 to 3, 0 normal function) and quality of life (global assessment of well-being, VAS 0 to 100 mm, 0 no disease activity) is very uncertain. Mean function was 0.84 with TNFi and 1 with placebo (MD 0.16 lower, 95% CI 0.39 lower to 0.06 higher; 3 studies, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). The mean participant global assessment of well-being was 23 mm with TNFi and 34 mm with placebo (MD 11 mm lower, 95% CI 23 mm lower to 1 mm higher; 3 studies, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias). No study reported data on remission. Harms at any time We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi on withdrawals due to adverse events (3%) compared to placebo (1%) (RR 3.41, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.9; 6 studies, 448 participants). We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi on serious adverse events (7%) compared to placebo (6%) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.22; 6 studies, 448 participants). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. TNFi plus MTX versus MTX alone Benefits at 17 to 26 weeks We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on treatment response. Seventy per cent of participants receiving MTX and 90% receiving TNFi plus MTX achieved treatment response (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77; 1 study, 40 participants). We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on remission. Five per cent of participants on MTX monotherapy and 40% on combination therapy were in remission (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19; 1 study, 40 participants). No study reported pain, function, or participant global assessment of well-being. Harms at any time We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. Very low-certainty evidence from two studies shows that 2/53 participants (4%) receiving MTX alone and 3/55 (5%) receiving TNFi plus MTX withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 9.82; 108 participants), and 5/53 (9%) receiving MTX alone and 0/55 receiving TNFi plus MTX reported serious adverse events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). Due to risk of bias and imprecision, the certainty of evidence was very low across all major outcomes for this comparison. In JIA, TNFi may result in a higher proportion of individuals achieving clinical improvement compared to placebo, but we are uncertain about the effect of TNFi on pain, function, and quality of life. We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi combined with MTX versus MTX alone on clinical improvement and remission. Evidence for the safety of TNFi compared to placebo or MTX is very uncertain. There are no RCTs comparing TNFi to other treatments. More high-quality studies are warranted to assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in JIA.

Cagnotto G ，Juhl CB ，Ahlström F ，Wikström F ，Bruschettini M ，Petersson I ，Dreyer L ，Compagno M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Stem cells are specialised precursor cells that can replace aged or damaged cells and thereby maintain healthy tissue function. Stem cell therapy is increasingly used as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, despite the lack of clarity around the mechanism by which stem cell therapy may slow down disease progression in osteoarthritis, and uncertainty regarding its benefits and harms. To assess the benefits and harms of stem cell injections for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 15 September 2023, unrestricted by date or language of publication. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trial protocols and ongoing trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing stem cell injection with placebo injection, no treatment or usual care, glucocorticoid injection, other injections, exercise, drug therapy, surgical interventions, and supplements and complementary therapies in people with knee osteoarthritis. Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary comparison was stem cell injection compared with placebo injection. The primary time point for pain, function and quality of life was three to six months, and the end of the trial period for participant-reported success, joint structure changes and adverse event outcomes. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, global assessment of success, radiographic joint progression, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We found 25 randomised trials (1341 participants) comparing stem cell injections with placebo injection (eight trials), no treatment or usual care (analgesia, weight loss and exercise) (two trials), glucocorticoid injection (one trial), hyaluronic acid injection (seven trials), platelet-rich plasma injections (two trials), oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) (one trial), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus physical therapy plus hyaluronic acid injection (one trial) and stem cell injection plus intra-articular co-intervention versus co-intervention alone (three trials) in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Trials were predominantly small, with sample sizes ranging from 6 to 252 participants, with only two trials having more than 100 participants. The average age of participants across trials ranged from 51 to 66 years, and symptom duration varied from one to 10 years. Placebo-controlled trials were largely free from bias, while most trials without a placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection biases. Here, we limit reporting to the main comparison, stem cell injection versus placebo injection. Compared with placebo injection, stem cell injection may slightly improve pain and function up to six months after treatment. Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.5 out of 10 points with placebo injection and 1.2 points better (2.5 points better to 0 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 80%; 7 studies, 445 participants). Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 best function) was 46.3 points with placebo injection and 14.2 points better (25.3 points better to 3.1 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 82%; 7 studies, 432 participants). We are uncertain whether stem cell injections improve quality of life or increase the number of people who report treatment success compared to placebo injection, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mean quality of life was 45.3 points with placebo injection and 22.8 points better (18.0 points worse to 63.7 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 96%; 2 studies, 288 participants) at up to six months follow-up. At the end of follow-up, 89/168 participants (530 per 1000) in the placebo injection group reported treatment success compared with 126/180 participants (683 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 348 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for pain and function due to indirectness (as the source, method of preparation and dose of stem cells varied across studies), and suspected publication bias (up to three larger RCTs have been conducted but withdrawn prior to reporting of results). For quality of life and treatment success, we further downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to imprecision in addition to indirectness and suspected publication bias. We are uncertain of the potential harms associated with stem cell injection, as there were very low event rates for serious adverse events. At the end of follow-up, 5/219 participants (23 per 1000) in the placebo injection group experienced serious adverse events compared with 4/242 participants (16 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.64; I2 = 0%; 7 trials, 461 participants) and there were no reported withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to indirectness, suspected publication bias and imprecision. Radiographic progression was not assessed in any of the included studies. Compared with placebo injections and based upon low-certainty evidence, stem cell injections for people with knee osteoarthritis may slightly improve pain and function. We are uncertain of the effects of stem cell injections on quality of life or the number who report treatment success. Although the putative benefits of stem cell therapies for osteoarthritis include potential regenerative effects on damaged tissues, particularly articular cartilage, we remain uncertain of the effect of stem cell injections on structural progression in the knee (measured by radiographic appearance). There is also uncertainty regarding the safety of stem cell injections. Serious adverse events were infrequently reported, although all invasive joint procedures (including injections) carry a small risk of septic arthritis. The risk of other important harms, including potential concerns related to the use of a therapy with the theoretical capacity to promote cell growth, or to the use of allogeneic cells, remains unknown.

Whittle SL ，Johnston RV ，McDonald S ，Worthley D ，Campbell TM ，Cyril S ，Bapna T ，Zhang J ，Buchbinder R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Methotrexate for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). This is an update of a 2001 Cochrane review. It supports a living guideline for children and young people with JIA. To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The Australian JIA Living Guideline Working Group created a registry of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of JIA by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. The date of the most recent search of online databases was 1 February 2023. We searched for RCTs that compared methotrexate with placebo, no treatment, or another DMARD (with or without concomitant therapies) in children and young people (aged up to 18 years) with JIA. We used standard Cochrane methods. The main comparison was methotrexate versus placebo. Our outcomes were treatment response, sustained clinically inactive disease, function, pain, participant global assessment of well-being, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified three new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included RCTs to five (575 participants). Three trials evaluated oral methotrexate versus placebo, one evaluated methotrexate plus intra-articular glucocorticoid (IAGC) therapy versus IAGC therapy alone, and one evaluated methotrexate versus leflunomide. Doses of methotrexate ranged from 5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week in four trials, and participants in the methotrexate group of the remaining trial received 0.5 mg/kg/week. Trial size varied from 31 to 226 participants. The average age of participants ranged from four to 10 years. Most participants were females and most had nonsystemic JIA. The study that evaluated methotrexate plus IAGC therapy versus IAGC therapy alone recruited children and young people with the oligoarticular disease subtype of JIA. Two placebo-controlled trials and the trial of methotrexate versus leflunomide were adequately randomised and blinded, and likely not susceptible to important biases. One placebo-controlled trial may have been susceptible to selection bias due to lack of adequate reporting of randomisation methods. The trial investigating the addition of methotrexate to IAGC therapy was susceptible to performance and detection biases. Methotrexate versus placebo Methotrexate compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people who achieve treatment response up to six months (absolute difference of 163 more per 1000 people; risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 328 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, methotrexate compared with placebo may have little or no effect on pain as measured on an increasing scale of 0 to 100 (mean difference (MD) -1.10 points, 95% CI -9.09 to 6.88; 1 trial, 114 participants), improvement in participant global assessment of well-being (absolute difference of 92 more per 1000 people; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.72; 1 trial, 176 participants), occurrence of serious adverse events (absolute difference of 5 fewer per 1000 people; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.97; 3 trials, 328 participants), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.60 to 19.79; 3 trials, 328 participants) up to six months. We could not estimate the absolute difference for withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the placebo group. All outcomes were reported within six months of randomisation. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low for all outcomes due to indirectness (suboptimal dosing of methotrexate and diverse outcome measures) and imprecision (few participants and low event rates). No trials reported function or the number of participants with sustained clinically inactive disease. Serious adverse events included liver derangement, abdominal pain, and inadvertent overdose. Methotrexate plus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy versus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy alone Methotrexate plus IAGC therapy compared with IAGC therapy alone may have little or no effect on the probability of sustained clinically inactive disease or the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to 12 months in children and young people with the oligoarticular subtype of JIA (low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate the absolute difference in withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the control group. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the interventions in the risk of severe adverse events, because none were reported. The study did not report treatment response, function, pain, or participant global assessment of well-being. Methotrexate versus an alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drug Methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on the probability of treatment response or on function, participant global assessment of well-being, risk of serious adverse events, and rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to four months. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low due to imprecision. The study did not report pain or sustained clinically inactive disease. Oral methotrexate (5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week) compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people achieving treatment response but may have little or no effect on pain or participant global assessment of well-being. Oral methotrexate plus IAGC injections compared to IAGC injections alone may have little or no effect on the likelihood of sustained clinically inactive disease among children and young people with oligoarticular JIA. Similarly, methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on treatment response, function, and participant global assessment of well-being. Serious adverse events due to methotrexate appear to be rare. We will update this review as new evidence becomes available to inform the living guideline.

Tan J ，Renton WD ，Whittle SL ，Takken T ，Johnston RV ，Tiller G ，Munro J ，Buchbinder R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Wallis JA ，Bourne AM ，Jessup RL ，Johnston RV ，Frydman A ，Cyril S ，Buchbinder R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》