Living with migraine: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

Introduction: Migraine is one of the top ten causes of disability worldwide. However, migraine is still underrated in society, and the quality of care for this disease is scant. Qualitative research allows for giving voice to people and understanding the impact of their disease through their experience of it. This study aims at synthesising the state of the art of qualitative studies focused on how people with migraine experience their life and pathology. Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were consulted up to November 2021 for qualitative studies. Studies to be eligible had to focus on adults (age > 18 years) with a diagnosis of primary episodic or chronic migraine following the International Classification of Headache. The quality of the study was analysed using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool. The synthesis was done through a thematic analysis. CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess the confidence in retrieved evidence. Results: Ten studies were included, counting 262 people with migraine. Our synthesis produced four main themes. (1) "Negative impact of migraine symptoms on overall life" as migraine negatively impacts people's whole life. (2) "Impact of migraine on family, work and social relationship" as migraine reduces the possibility to focus at work and interact with people. (3) "Impact of migraine on emotional health" as people with migraine experience psychological distress. (4) "Coping strategies to deal with migraine" such as keep on living one's own life, no matter the symptoms. Conclusions: Migraine negatively impacts people's whole life, from private to social and work sphere. People with migraine feel stigmatised as others struggle with understanding their condition. Hence, it is necessary to improve awareness among society of this disabling condition, and the quality of care of these people, tackling this disease from a social and health-policy point of view.

Perceptions and Experiences of Individuals With Neck Pain: A Systematic Critical Review of Qualitative Studies With Meta-Summary and Meta-Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at exploring the perspectives and experiences of individuals with neck pain by synthesizing all available qualitative studies. METHODS: A systematic, qualitative meta-summary and meta-synthesis was conducted following the 5-step methodology proposed by Sandelowski and Barroso. A systematic search of 9 electronic databases was conducted in May 2021. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the meta-synthesis for a total of 103 participants (73 women). Eleven categories were identified as belonging to 3 main themes: physical ("My neck has gone wrong"); psychological ("I am worried about my recovery"); and social ("Pain limits my life"). In the physical theme, the categories with the highest frequency were symptoms (67%) followed by body perception (44%). The psychological theme frequencies from highest to lowest were psychological consequences (100%), coping strategies (100%), mindset (67%), expectations from health care professionals (44%), and gender influence (22%). In the social theme, frequencies from highest to lowest were social relationships (56%), work, and activities of daily living and physical activity (44%, respectively). CONCLUSION: An individual's experience with neck pain is a multidimensional phenomenon in which physical, psychological, and social dimensions influence each other. These findings suggested that health care professionals should be aware of recognizing and evaluating all of the individual's experiences to offer a truly patient-centered care pathway. IMPACT: This qualitative meta-synthesis responded to a call to action to explore perspectives and experiences of individuals with neck pain. These findings can provide crucial guidance for clinicians as they plan and implement evidence-based recommendations for neck pain.

The Use of Botulinum Toxin A as an Adjunctive Therapy in the Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Several studies have investigated the effect of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain, bringing contrasting results to the forefront. Thus far, however, there has been no synthesis of evidence on the effect of BoNT-A as an adjunctive treatment within a multimodal approach. Hence, Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-CENTRAL were searched until November 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The risk of bias (RoB) and the overall quality of the studies were assessed through RoB 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. Meta-analysis was conducted to analyse the pooled results of the six included RCTs. Four were at a low RoB, while two were at a high RoB. The meta-analysis showed that BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy did not significantly decrease pain compared to the sole use of traditional treatment (SDM -0.89; 95% CI -1.91; 0.12; p = 0.08). Caution should be used when interpreting such results, since the studies displayed very high heterogeneity (I = 94%, p < 0.001). The overall certainty of the evidence was very low. The data retrieved from this systematic review do not support the use of BoNT-A as an adjunctive therapy in treating chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Manual Therapy and Quality of Life in People with Headache: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: People with headache usually experienced significantly lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than the healthy subjects. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy on HRQoL in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), migraine (MH) or cervicogenic headache (CGH). RECENT FINDINGS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MEDLINE, COCHRANE and PEDro databases. Treatment was manual therapy compared to usual care or placebo. The outcome was the HRQoL that could be measured by Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Headache Disability Inventory (HDI), Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire (MIDAS) and Short Form Health Survey 12/36 (SF-12/36). For the RCT internal validity, we used the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. For the level of evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). We identified a total of 10 RCTs, 7 of which were included into the meta-analysis. For HIT-6 scale, meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour to manual therapy both after treatment (mean difference (MD) - 3.67; 95% CI from - 5.71 to - 1.63) and at follow-up (MD - 2.47; 95% CI from - 3.27 to - 1.68). For HDI scale, meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour to manual therapy both after treatment (MD - 4.01; 95% CI from - 5.82 to - 2.20) and at follow-up (MD - 5.62; 95% CI from - 10.69 to - 0.54). Other scales provided inconclusive results. Manual therapy should be considered as an effective approach in improving the quality of life in patients with TTH and MH, while in patients with CGH, the results were inconsistent. Those positive results should be considered with caution due to the very low level of evidence. Researchers should in future design primary studies using valid and reliable disease-specific outcome measures.

Effectiveness of Trigger Point Manual Treatment on the Frequency, Intensity, and Duration of Attacks in Primary Headaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: A variety of interventions has been proposed for symptomatology relief in primary headaches. Among these, manual trigger points (TrPs) treatment gains popularity, but its effects have not been investigated yet. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to establish the effectiveness of manual TrP compared to minimal active or no active interventions in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration of attacks in adult people with primary headaches. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Web Of Science, and PEDro databases up to November 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent reviewers appraised the risk-of-bias (RoB) and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS: Seven RCTs that compared manual treatment vs minimal active intervention were included: 5 focused on tension-type headache (TTH) and 2 on Migraine (MH); 3 out of 7 RCTs had high RoB. Combined TTH and MH results show statistically significant reduction for all outcomes after treatment compared to controls, but the level of evidence was very low. Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in attack frequency (no. of attacks per month) after treatment in TTH (MD -3.50; 95% CI from -4.91 to -2.09; 4 RCTs) and in MH (MD -1.92; 95% CI from -3.03 to -0.80; 2 RCTs). Pain intensity (0-100 scale) was reduced in TTH (MD -12.83; 95% CI from -19.49 to -6.17; 4 RCTs) and in MH (MD -13.60; 95% CI from -19.54 to -7.66; 2RCTs). Duration of attacks (hours) was reduced in TTH (MD -0.51; 95% CI from -0.97 to -0.04; 2 RCTs) and in MH (MD -10.68; 95% CI from -14.41 to -6.95; 1 RCT). CONCLUSION: Manual TrPs treatment of head and neck muscles may reduce frequency, intensity, and duration of attacks in TTH and MH, but the quality of evidence according to GRADE approach was very low for the presence of few studies, high RoB, and imprecision of results.