Rehabilitation Interventions for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Objectives: An increasing number of systematic reviews have been conducted on various conservative management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) targeting different rehabilitation interventions and objectives. The intent of this article was to summarize and critically appraise the body of evidence on conservative management of the CRPS and to provide an overall picture of the current state of the literature. Methods: This study was an overview of systematic reviews on conservative treatments for CRPS. We conducted a literature search from inception to January 2023 in the following databases: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Two independent reviewers conducted study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (using AMSTAR-2). Qualitative synthesis was the preferred method for reporting the findings of our review. We calculated the corrected covered area index to account for the proportion of overlapping primary studies that were included in multiple reviews. Result: We identified 214 articles, and a total of 9 systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Pain and disability were the most common outcomes evaluated in the reviews. There were 6 (6/9; 66%) high-quality, 2 (2/9; 22%) moderate-quality, and 1 critically low-quality systematic review (1/9;11%), with the quality of the included trials ranging from very low to high. There was a large overlap across primary studies that were included in the systematic reviews (corrected covered area=23%). The findings of high-quality reviews support the effectiveness of mirror therapy (MT) and graded motor imagery (GMI) programs on pain and disability improvement in CRPS patients. The large effect size was reported for the effectiveness of MT on pain and disability (SMD:1.88 (95% CI: 0.73–3.02) and 1.30 (95% CI: 0.11–2.49), respectively) and the effectiveness of GMI program (GMIP) on pain and disability improvement (SMD: 1.36 (95% CI: 0.75–1.96) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.53–2.74), respectively). Discussion: The evidence is in favor of adopting movement representation techniques, such as MT and GMI programs, for the treatment of pain and disability in patients with CRPS. However, this is based on a small body of primary evidence, and more research is required to generate conclusions. Overall, the evidence is not comprehensive or of sufficient quality to make definitive recommendations about the effectiveness of other rehabilitation interventions in improving pain and disability.