Dry needling is commonly used for the management of plantar fasciitis. This meta-analysis evaluated the effects of dry needling over trigger points associated with plantar heel pain on pain intensity and related disability or function.
Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials in which at least one group received dry needling, not acupuncture, for trigger points associated with plantar heel pain and in which outcomes were collected on pain intensity and related disability. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, methodological quality was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score, and the level of evidence is reported according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Between-groups mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.
The search identified 297 publications, with six trials eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that trigger point dry needling reduces pain intensity in the short term (MD -1.70 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.80 to -0.60; SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.44) and moderate-quality evidence that it improves pain intensity (MD -1.77 points, 95% CI -2.44 to -1.11; SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.19 to -0.70) and related disability (SMD -1.75, 95% CI -2.22 to -1.28) in the long term, as compared with a comparison group. The risk of bias of the trials was generally low, but the heterogeneity of the results downgraded the level of evidence.
Moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests a positive effect of trigger point dry needling for improving pain intensity and pain-related disability in the short term and long term, respectively, in patients with plantar heel pain of musculoskeletal origin. The present results should be considered with caution because of the small number of trials.

Is Dry Needling Effective for the Management of Plantar Heel Pain or Plantar Fasciitis? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is known to exert multi-directional biological effects favouring tendon healing. However, conclusions drawn by numerous studies on its clinical efficacy for acute Achilles tendon rupture are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this and to compare to those without PRP treatment.
The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Pubmed, Medline and Embase were used and assessed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: ('plasma' OR 'platelet-rich' OR 'platelet-rich plasma' or 'PRP') AND ('Achilles tendon rupture/tear' OR 'calcaneal tendon rupture/tear' OR 'tendo calcaneus rupture/tear'). Data pertaining to biomechanical outcomes (heel endurance test, isokinetic strength, calf-circumference and range of motion), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and incidence of re-ruptures were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed for same outcomes measured in at least three studies. Pooled outcome data were analysed by random- and fixed-effects models.
After abstract and full-text screening, 6 studies were included. In total there were 510 patients of which 256 had local PRP injection and 254 without. The average age was 41.6 years, mean time from injury to treatment 5.9 days and mean follow-up at 61 weeks. Biomechanically, there was similar heel endurance, isokinetic strength, calf circumference and range of motion between both groups. In general, there were no differences in patient reported outcomes from all scoring systems used in the studies. Both groups returned to their pre-injured level at a similar time and there were no differences on the incidence of re-rupture (OR 1.13, 95% CI, 0.46-2.80, p = 0.79).
PRP injections for acute Achilles tendon ruptures do not improve medium to long-term biomechanical and clinical outcomes. However, future studies incorporating the ideal application and biological composition of PRP are required to investigate its true clinical efficacy.

Platelet-Rich Plasma in acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In neonatology, neonates have traditionally been considered incapable of feeling pain, due to the immaturity of their nervous system. Currently, there is sufficient information on the perception of pain in neonates; however, this treatment at this crucial stage for development requires a better approach. For this reason, the aim of this study was to analyse the efficacy of non-pharmacological analgesia interventions during heel prick, and to assess their effects on heart rate (HR), premature infant pain profile (PIPP) and O

Effect of Non-Pharmacological Methods in the Reduction of Neonatal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Plantar fasciitis is a recurrent cause of heel pain and is often treated by corticosteroid infections (CSI). The current study reviewed and analysed the role of CSI with platelet rich plasma (PRP), and CSI with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (EWST) for plantar fasciitis treatment.
PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies. Preferred Reporting in Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to search relevant studies published from infinity to April 2021. The risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. GRADE assessment was used for quality of evidence. Data analysis was performed with the use of R software and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. CSI was compared with PRP and EWST.
Eighteen studies comprising 1180 patients were included in this meta-analysis. When compared to PRP, CSI with lignocaine/lidocaine had significantly higher mean difference on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at 3 months (0.62 [0.13; 1.12], P = 0.01) and 6 months (MD = 1.49 [0.22; 2.76], P = 0.02). At 6 months, VAS scores were higher in the CSI group than the ESWT group (MD = 0.8 [0.38; 1.22], P = 0.1). At 6 months, a significant reduction in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) was observed in the CSI group compared to PRP (MD = - 11.53 [- 16.62; - 6.43], P < 0.0001).
Patients suffering from plantar fasciitis, PRP achieved better VAS scores compared to CSI at 3 and 6-month follow-up. In addition, ESWT had better VAS score outcomes at 6 months compared to CSI. Regarding AOFAS score, PRP was more efficacious than CSI at 6 months of follow-up. Only through the development of high-quality, large-scale longitudinal studies, will the findings and conclusions of this meta-analysis be strengthened and influence our clinical practice in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.
II.

The role of corticosteroid injections in treating plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination.
Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019.
Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data.
Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I
Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.
Older people, 60 years and older.
Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I
3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.
The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.
PROSPERO CRD42022328367.
Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.

Prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare systems. However, the estimates of prevalence, incidence and hospital-acquired rate of pressure injury in hospitalised patients vary considerably in relevant published studies.
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate in hospitalised adult patients and identify the most frequently occurring pressure injury stage(s) and affected anatomical location(s).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest databases from January 2008 to December 2018.
We included studies with observational, cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, reporting pressure injury among hospitalised adults (≥16 years) and published in English. Outcomes were point prevalence, incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate reported as percentages. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I² statistic and random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.
Of 7,489 studies identified, 42 were included in the systematic review and 39 of them were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total sample of 2,579,049 patients. The pooled prevalence of 1,366,848 patients was 12.8% (95% CI 11.8-13.9%); pooled incidence rate of 681,885 patients was 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days (95% CI 3.4-7.8) and pooled hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate of 1,893,593 was 8.4% (95% CI 7.6-9.3%). Stages were reported in 16 studies (132,530 patients with 12,041 pressure injuries). The most frequently occurred stages were Stage I (43.5%) and Stage II (28.0%). The most affected body sites were sacrum, heels and hip. Significant heterogeneity was noted across some geographic regions. Meta-regression showed that the year of data collection, mean age and gender were independent predictors, explaining 67% variability in the prevalence of pressure injuries. The year of data collection and age alone explained 93% of variability in hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate.
This study suggested that the burden of pressure injuries remains substantial with over one in ten adult patients admitted to hospitals affected. Superficial pressure injuries, such as Stage I and II, are most common stages and are preventable. Our results highlight healthcare institutions' focus on pressure injuries globally and supports the need to dedicate resources to prevention and treatment on pressure injuries. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019118774.

Papers