Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31440078›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2019

Mesotherapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in rehabilitation: the state of the art.

T Paolucci, R G Bellomo, M A Centra, N Giannandrea, L Pezzi, R Saggini

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Ultrasound Imaging and Guidance for Cervical Myofascial Pain: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T PaolucciUniversity G.d'Annunzio Chieti, Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
R G BellomoUniversity of Study of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Urbino, Italy.
M A CentraUniversity G.d'Annunzio Chieti, Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
N GiannandreaUniversity G.d'Annunzio Chieti, Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
L PezziUniversity G.d'Annunzio Chieti, Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
R SagginiUniversity G.d'Annunzio Chieti, Department of Medical and Oral Sciences and Biotechnologies, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
University of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of Urbino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMesotherapy can be included as an ancillary treatment in the management of localized pain in rehabilitation, but there are no definitive treatment protocols for this approach.

objectivesThe purpose of this review was to examine new indications for more standard protocols of mesotherapy in rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis systematic review was performed using the following resources: PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The following algorithm was developed, based on the PICO acronym, to evaluate the effects of mesotherapy, with pain as the primary outcome (MESH terms): [mesotherapy AND pain], [mesotherapy AND musculoskeletal], [mesotherapy AND musculoskeletal disorder], [intradermal therapy AND pain], and [intradermal therapy AND musculoskeletal disorder].

resultsSeven articles (N=7) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were considered in the review: two of them treated osteoarthritis of the knee (3 sessions) and pes anserine (9 sessions) emphasizing a good efficacy of mesotherapy. Five studies analyzed spine diseases (specifically, two was about chronic and nonspecific neck pain, two about acute low back pain and one about chronic spinal pain): the results of mesotherapy treatment are encouraging both for the resolution of acute and chronic musculoskeletal vertebral pain from one to five sessions.

conclusionMesotherapy showed a good effect to reduce acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain and, also, it is a well-tolerated treatment. Nonetheless future randomized controlled trials should be desirable for more uniform treatment protocols.

Indexed as

intradermal injectionmesotherapymusculoskeletalpainrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID31440078
PMCPMC6679691
OpenAlexW2964973442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.