Rheumatoid Arthritis: Judd M

Han A, Robinson V, Judd M, Taixiang W, Wells G, Tugwell P. · 5-83 Pape Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4M 2V5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #15266544 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease that results in the destruction of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, Pedro and CINAHL databases up to September 2002, using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy for randomised controlled trials. We also searched the Chinese Biomedical Database up to December 2003 and the Beijing Chinese Academy of Traditional Medicine up to December 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits and harms of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy were selected. We included control groups who received no therapy, sham therapy or another type of therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included in this review, rated the methodological quality and extracted data using standardized forms. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 206 participants, were included in this review. Tai Chi-based exercise programs had no clinically important or statistically significant effect on most outcomes of disease activity, which included activities of daily living, tender and swollen joints and patient global overall rating. For range of motion, Tai Chi participants had statistically significant and clinically important improvements in ankle plantar flexion. No detrimental effects were found. One study found that compared to people who participated in traditional ROM exercise/rest programs those in a Tai Chi dance program reported a significantly higher level of participation in and enjoyment of exercise both immediately and four months after completion of the Tai Chi program. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest Tai Chi does not exacerbate symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, Tai Chi has statistically significant benefits on lower extremity range of motion, in particular ankle range of motion, for people with RA. The included studies did not assess the effects on patient-reported pain.

Blumenauer B, Judd M, Cranney A, Burls A, Coyle D, Hochberg M, Tugwell P, Wells G. · No affiliation provided · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #14584021 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor DMARD for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept for the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (minimum 6 month duration) comparing three possible combinations 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) with methotrexate (MTX) to MTX alone 2) etanercept to MTX, or 3) etanercept to placebo were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trails. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of disease activity measures for RA clinical trials, radiographic, withdrawals and toxicity outcomes were analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included in this review. Two trials compared an experimental group who were started on etanercept compared to a control group; both groups had the same ongoing background therapy of nonsteroidals in both trials plus in one trial one group was on stable methotrexate.In these two trials the ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response rates at 6 months were statistically significantly and clinically important with etanercept 25 mg subcutaneous injections (SC) twice weekly. Sixty-four percent of people receiving etanercept ache vied an ACR 20 response compared to 15% of controls and the number needed to treat (NNT) with etanercept is 2 people. Thirty-nine percent of those receiving etanercept achieved an ACR 50 response compared to 4% of taking control treatment and the NNT is three.Fifteen percent of people taking etanercept achieved an ACR 70 compared to 1% of controls with a NNT of 7 people.In the third trial of starting etanercept compared to starting methotrexate the number of participants who achieved an ACR 20, 50 or response at 6 and 12 months were not statistically significant for either etanercept dose.Etanercept treatment showed a statistically significantly and clinically important affect on joint damage as measured by the Sharp erosion score. Among participants who received etanercept 72% had no increase in their erosion score compared to 60% of participants in the methotrexate group. Withdrawal and toxicity results were acceptable. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept 25 mg SC twice weekly was more efficacious than control treatment for ACR 20, 50 and 70 at 6 months, and over 12 months it slowed joint damage.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Shea B, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Department of Public Health, St. George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12519610 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive. OBJECTIVES: To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.

Casimiro L, Brosseau L, Robinson V, Milne S, Judd M, Well G, Tugwell P, Shea B. · School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8M5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137714 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is often used, by rehabilitation specialists, as an adjunct therapy for the symptomatic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its mechanical energy has antiinflammatory as well as analgesic properties. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of ultrasound on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search was conducted up to September 2001 with MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group specialized registers were also searched. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved papers and content experts were contacted to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all the extracted data. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point validated assessment tool that measures the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (n=80 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Ultrasound to the palmar and dorsal aspect of the hand significantly increases grip strength when compared to a control (weighted mean difference (WMD) 28.07, 95CI: 13.37 to 42.77). Ultrasound to the palmar and dorsal aspects of the hand also appears to have beneficial effects to the following outcome measures: wrist dorsal flexion (WMD 1.90, 95%CI: 0.64 to 3.16), duration of morning stiffness (WMD 28.54, 95%CI: 0.18 to 56.90), number of swollen joints (WMD 1.02, 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.59) and the number of painful joints (WMD 1.20, 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.95). There is no significant difference between a)exercises and wax, b)exercises with ultrasound, c)exercises with ultrasound and faradic hand baths for the following outcome measures: pain score, grip strength, circumference of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, articular index, range of motion or level of activity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The reviewers concluded that ultrasound in combination with the following treatment modalities; exercises, faradic current and wax baths, is not supported and cannot be recommended. Ultrasound alone can however, be used on the hand to increase grip strength, and to a lesser extent, based on the borderline results, increase wrist dorsal flexion, decrease morning stiffness, reduce the number of swollen joints and reduce the number of painful joints. It is important to note that these conclusions are limited by the methodological considerations such as poor quality of the trials, the low number of clinical trials, and the small sample size of the included studies.

Blumenauer B, Judd M, Wells G, Burls A, Cranney A, Hochberg M, Tugwell P. · Department of Rheumatology, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137712 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a human murine chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody recently approved for the treatment of refractory RA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases including Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR and MEDLINE were searched from 1966 to March 2002. Rheumatoid arthritis was searched as an exploded MESH heading. Infliximab was searched as a text word as it is not currently indexed. The search was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication. The specific search strategy is shown below. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing infliximab 1, 3, 5 or 10 mg/kg with methotrexate(MTX) to MTX alone, or without MTX to placebo, with a minimum duration of 6 months and at least 2 infusions were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers and the methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated assessment tool scale. Outcome variables included the ACR core set of disease activity measures for RA clinical trials and radiographic outcome data. Withdrawals and toxicity were also included. End of trial results were pooled. Continuous data were pooled using weighted mean differences and dichotomous data using relative risks. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 529 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients fulfilling the American Rheumatism Association 1987 RA diagnostic criteria were randomized to receive either infliximab 1mg/kg (with and without MTX), 3mg/kg(with and without MTX), 10mg/kg of infliximab (with and without MTX) or placebo infusion plus MTX. Infusions were given every 4 or 8 weeks. After 6 months ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response rates were significantly improved in all infliximab doses compared to control. The number needed to treat with infliximab to achieve an ACR 20, 50 or 70 response in patients with refractory RA under specialist care ranged from 2.9 to 3.3 for ACR 20, 3.6 to 4.8 for ACR 50 and 5.9 to 12.5 for ACR 70 depending on the dose (3mg/kg or 10mg/kg given either every 4 or 8 weeks). Total withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were lower for all doses of infliximab versus controls. Withdrawals for adverse events and withdrawals for other reasons were not statistically significantly different for those receiving infliximab from control. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with infliximab for 6 and 12 months significantly reduces RA disease activity and appeared to have an acceptable safety profile in these trials. Total radiographic scores improved, fewer patients showed radiographic progression, and more patients showed radiographic improvement with infliximab treatment at 12 months compared to controls. However, only 2 trials met the inclusion criteria, and these results are largely driven by the largest trial. The available efficacy and toxicity data is relatively short-term (6-12 months). In order to detect rare events that may be associated with infliximab, larger and longer term studies are required.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 11 Strand, London, UK, WC1N 5HR. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137705 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors for arthritis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1996) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials evaluating rofecoxib for the treatment of RA were identified and met the inclusion criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several doses of rofecoxib. The second trial compared rofecoxib to naproxen and was primarily designed to assess the safety of rofecoxib so did not include all the recommended RA efficacy measures. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Compared to patients taking naproxen, patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having any cardiovascular event (45/4047 = 1.1% vs 19/4029 =0.47%) (RR 2.36 CI 1.38 to 4.02) and had greater risk of having a non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (18/4047 =0.44% and 4/4029 =0.1%) (RR 4.48, 95% CI, 1.52 to 13.23). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 11 Strand, London, UK, WC1N 5HR. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12076502 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institue for Clincal Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inibitors for arthritis. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies were randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1995) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib in RA were identified and met the criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and the other compared rofecoxib to naproxen. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having a myocardial infarction (MI) than patients taking naproxen (RR 4.03, 95% CI, 2.86 to 5.68). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear.

Robinson V, Brosseau L, Casimiro L, Judd M, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N-6N5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12076454 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Thermotherapy is often used as adjunct in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different thermotherapy applications on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including September 2001. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Hand searching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of thermotherapy compared to control or active interventions in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search (VR, LB). These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (n=328 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The results of this systematic review of thermotherapy for RA found that there was no significant effect of hot and ice packs applications (Ivey 1994), cryotherapy (Rembe 1970) and faradic baths (Hawkes 1986) on objective measures of disease activity including joint swelling, pain, medication intake, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, hand function compared to a control (no treatment) or active therapy. There is no significant difference between wax and therapeutic ultrasound as well as between wax and faradic bath combined to ultrasound for all the outcomes measured after 1, 2 or 3 week(s) of treatment (Hawkes 1986). There was no difference in patient preference for all types of thermotherapy. No harmful effects of thermotherapy were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Superficial moist heat and cryotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy. Paraffin wax baths combined with exercises can be recommended for beneficial short term effects for arthritic hands. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the poor quality of trials.

Robinson V, Brosseau L, Casimiro L, Judd M, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N-6N5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11869637 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Thermotherapy is often used as adjunct in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different thermotherapy applications on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including September 2001. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Hand searching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of thermotherapy compared to control or active interventions in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search (VR, LB). These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (n=328 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The results of this systematic review of thermotherapy for RA found that there was no significant effect of hot and ice packs applications (Ivey 1994), cryotherapy (Rembe 1970) and faradic baths (Hawkes 1986) on objective measures of disease activity including joint swelling, pain, medication intake, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, hand function compared to a control (no treatment) or active therapy. There is no significant difference between wax and therapeutic ultrasound as well as between wax and faradic bath combined to ultrasound for all the outcomes measured after 1, 2 or 3 week(s) of treatment (Hawkes 1986). There was no difference in patient preference for all types of thermotherapy. No harmful effects of thermotherapy were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Superficial moist heat and cryotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy. Paraffin wax baths combined with exercises can be recommended for beneficial short term effects for arthritic hands. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the poor quality of trials.

Maxwell L, Santesso N, Tugwell PS, Wells GA, Judd M, Buchbinder R. · Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17086611 No free full text.

Abstract: The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 50 groups of the not-for-profit international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. To enhance the quality and usability of systematic reviews, the CMSG has developed tailored methodological guidelines for authors of CMSG systematic reviews. Recommendations specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review, including literature searching, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, grading of evidence, data collection, and data analysis. These guidelines will help researchers design, conduct, and report results of systematic reviews of trials in the following fields of musculoskeletal health: gout, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, pediatric rheumatology, rheumatoid arthritis, soft tissue rheumatism, spondyloarthropathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, and vasculitis. Systematic reviews need to be conducted according to high methodological standards. These recommendations on developing and performing a systematic review will help improve consistency among CMSG reviews.