CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196Pain Management and TreatmentStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

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

Open access
Smart, Keith M, Wand, Benedict M, O'Connell, Neil E·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010853.pub2PMC PMC8646955
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for treating the pain and disability associated with CRPS types I and II. SEARCH METHODS: 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 We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd010853.pub2

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Aydemir K, Taşkaynatan MA, Yaziicioğlu K, Özgül A. The effects of stellate ganglion block with Lidocaine and ultrasound in complex regional pain syndrome: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study [Kompleks bölgesel ağri sendromunda Lydokane ultrason ile yapilan stellat ganglyon blokajinin etkinliği: çift kör randomize plasebo kontrollü çalişma]. Journal of Rheumatology and Medical Rehabilitation 2006;17(3):193‐200. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hazneci B, Tan AK, Özdem T, Dinçer K, Kalyon TA. The effects of transcutaneous electroneurostimulation and ultrasound in the treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome [Refleks sempatik distrofi sendromu tedavisinde transkutanöz elektronörostimülasyon ve ultrasonun etkileri]. Turkiye Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation] 2005;51(3):83‐9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cossins L, Okell RW, Cameron H, Simpson B, Poole HM, Goebel A. Treatment of complex regional pain in adults: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials published from June 2000 to February 2012. European Journal of Pain 2013;17(2):158‐73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goebel A, Barker CH, Turner‐Stokes L, Cossins L, Okell R, Atkins RM, et al. Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Adults: UK Guidelines for Diagnosis, Referral and Management in Primary and Secondary Care. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Moore RA, Barden J, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Managing potential publication bias. In: McQuay HJ, Kalso E, Moore RA editor(s). Systematic Reviews in Pain Research: Methodology Refined. Seattle: IASP Press, 2008:15‐23. [Google Scholar]
  6. The Nordic Cochrane Centre; The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre; The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smart, K. M., Wand, B. M., & O'Connell, N. E.
Affiliations
  • St. Vincent's University Hospital (IE)
  • The University of Notre Dame Australia (AU)
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-24
Volume
2016
Issue
3
Pages
CD010853-CD010853
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd010853.pub2
PMC
PMC8646955
OpenAlex
W1892003845
Cited by
196
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2022-05-17)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline@ND (The University of Notre Dame) (submittedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
complex regional pain syndrome, CRPS type I, CRPS type II, physiotherapy intervention, pain intensity, functional disability, manual therapy, exercise therapy, electrotherapy, multimodal therapy, treatment effectiveness, quality of evidence, risk of bias, GRADE assessment, post-traumatic pain, postoperative pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Pain Measurement, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Complex Regional Pain Syndromes, Physical Therapy Modalities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review