A programme of static positional stretches does not reduce hemiplegic shoulder pain or maintain shoulder range of motion - a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a programme of static positional stretches and positioning of the stroke-affected shoulder for maintaining shoulder external rotation and decreasing hemiplegic shoulder pain. Design: Randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest design. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation unit. Subjects: Thirty-two participants ( 17 treatment, 15 comparison) with a first time stroke who were admitted for rehabilitation. Interventions: Treatment participants completed a programme of static positional stretches of the stroke-affected shoulder twice daily and positioned the stroke-affected upper limb in an armrest support at all other times when seated. Main measures: The main outcome measures were pain-free range of motion into external rotation, pain in the stroke-affected shoulder at rest and with movement, motor recovery and functional independence. Results: All participants demonstrated a significant loss of external rotation ( P = 0.005) with no significant group differences. All participants demonstrated a significant improvement in motor recovery ( P < 0.01) and functional independence ( P < 0.01) with no significant group differences. There were no significant effects for pain. The comparison group recorded a decrease in mean pain reported with movement from admission to discharge, and the treatment group recorded an increase. Conclusions: Participation in the management programme did not result in improved outcomes. The results of this study do not support the application of the programme of static positional stretches to maintain range of motion in the shoulder. The effect of increasing pain for the treatment group requires further investigation.

A pragmatic 2 × 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing in palliative care—methodology of the Palliative Care Trial [ISRCTN 81117481]

The demand for palliative care is increasing, yet there are few data on the best models of care nor well-validated interventions that translate current evidence into clinical practice. Supporting multidisciplinary patient-centered palliative care while successfully conducting a large clinical trial is a challenge. The Palliative Care Trial (PCT) is a pragmatic 2 x 2 x 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial that tests the ability of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing to improve patient-based outcomes such as performance status and pain intensity. Four hundred sixty-one consenting patients and their general practitioners (GPs) were randomized to the following: (1) GP educational outreach visiting versus usual care, (2) Structured patient and caregiver educational outreach visiting versus usual care and (3) A coordinated palliative care model of case conferencing versus the standard model of palliative care in Adelaide, South Australia (3:1 randomization). Main outcome measures included patient functional status over time, pain intensity, and resource utilization. Participants were followed longitudinally until death or November 30, 2004. The interventions are aimed at translating current evidence into clinical practice and there was particular attention in the trial's design to addressing common pitfalls for clinical studies in palliative care. Given the need for evidence about optimal interventions and service delivery models that improve the care of people with life-limiting illness, the results of this rigorous, high quality clinical trial will inform practice. Initial results are expected in mid 2005. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A randomized, controlled trial of massage therapy as a treatment for migraine

Background: Migraine is a distressing disorder that is often triggered by stress and poor sleep. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) has assessed the effects of massage therapy on migraine experiences, which yielded some promising findings. Purpose: An RCT was designed to replicate and extend the earlier findings using a larger sample, additional stress-related indicators, and assessments past the final session to identify longer-term effects of massage therapy on stress and migraine, experiences. Methods: Migraine sufferers (N = 47) who were randomly assigned to massage or control conditions completed daily assessments of migraine experiences and sleep patterns for 13 weeks. Massage participants attended weekly massage sessions during Weeks 5 to 10. State anxiety, heart rates, and salivary cortisol were assessed before and after the sessions. Perceived stress and coping efficacy were assessed at Weeks 4, 10, and 13. Results: Compared to control participants, massage participants exhibited greater improvements in migraine frequency and sleep quality during the intervention weeks and the 3 follow-up weeks. Trends for beneficial effects of massage therapy on perceived stress and coping efficacy were observed. During sessions, massage induced decreases in state anxiety, heart rate, and cortisol. Conclusions: The findings provide preliminary support for the utility of massage therapy as a nonpharmacologic treatment for individuals suffering from migraines.

Does naltrexone treatment lead to depression? Findings from a randomized controlled trial in subjects with opioid dependence

Objective: Dysphoria and depression have been cited as side effects of the opioid antagonist naltrexone. We aimed to assess whether depressive symptoms are a clinically relevant side effect in a population receiving naltrexone as a treatment for opioid dependence. Methods: We carried out a randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing rapid opiate detoxification under anesthesia and naltrexone treatment with continued methadone maintenance at the Alcohol and Drug Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. The study subjects were patients stabilized on methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence who wished to transfer to naltrexone treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Opiate Treatment Index subscales for heroin use and social functioning were used at baseline and follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Results: Forty-two participants were allocated to receive naltrexone treatment, whereas 38 continued methadone maintenance as the control condition. Participants who received naltrexone did not exhibit worsening of depressive symptoms. In participants attending all follow-up assessments, there was a trend for those receiving naltrexone to exhibit an improvement in depression over time compared with the control group. Participants who were adherent to naltrexone treatment exhibited fewer depressive symptoms than those who were nonadherent. Conclusions: These results suggest that depression need not be considered a common adverse effect of naltrexone treatment or a treatment contraindication and that engaging with or adhering to naltrexone treatment may be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.