Basford, Jeffrey R.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of tendinopathy. Secondary objectives were to determine the relevance of irradiation parameters to outcomes, and the validity of current dosage recommendations for the treatment of tendinopathy. Background: LLLT is proposed as a possible treatment for tendon injuries. However, the clinical effectiveness of this modality remains controversial, with limited agreement on the most efficacious dosage and parameter choices. Method: The following databases were searched from inception to 1 st August 2008: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, All EBM reviews, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), SCOPUS. Controlled clinical trials evaluating LLLT as a primary intervention for any tendinopathy were included in the review. Methodological quality was classified as: high (≥6 out of 10 on the PEDro scale) or low (<6) to grade the strength of evidence. Accuracy and clinical appropriateness of treatment parameters were assessed using established recommendations and guidelines. Results: Twenty-five controlled clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. There were conflicting findings from multiple trials: 12 showed positive effects and 13 were inconclusive or showed no effect. Dosages used in the 12 positive studies would support the existence of an effective dosage window that closely resembled current recommended guidelines. In two instances where pooling of data was possible, LLLT showed a positive effect size; in studies of lateral epicondylitis that scored ≥6 on the PEDro scale, participants' grip strength was 9.59 kg higher than that of the control group; for participants with Achilles tendinopathy, the effect was 13.6 mm less pain on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Conclusion: LLLT can potentially be effective in treating tendinopathy when recommended dosages are used. The 12 positive studies provide strong evidence that positive outcomes are associated with the use of current dosage recommendations for the treatment of tendinopathy.

Purpose Physical impairments cause profound functional declines in patients with cancer. Although common rehabilitation measures can address many impairments, the extent of their delivery is unknown. We studied these issues by quantifying physical impairments in patients with metastatic breast cancer and by assessing how they are addressed. Patients and Methods A consecutive sample of 163 community-dwelling patients with metastatic breast cancer was stratified by Karnofsky performance score and administered the Medical Outcomes Study Physical Function Subscale and the Older Americans Resource Study Activities of Daily Living subscales. Cancer-related physical impairments were identified through a physical examination, the 6-Minute Walk Test, and the Functional Independence Measure Mobility Subscale. Patients were questioned regarding the nature, type, and setting of treatments for impairments. Physical rehabilitation needs were determined through a consensus process involving physiatrists and physical/occupational therapists specializing in cancer. Results Ninety-two percent of patients (150 of 163) had at least one physical impairment. Among 530 identified impairments, 484 (92%) required a physical rehabilitation intervention and 469 (88%) required physical therapy (PT) and/or occupational therapy (OT). Only 30% of impairments requiring rehabilitation services and 21% of those requiring PT/OT received treatment. Impairments detected during hospitalization were overwhelmingly more likely to receive a rehabilitation intervention (odds ratio [OR] = 87.9; 95% CI, 28.5 to 271.4), and PT/OT (OR = 558.8; 95% CI, 187.0 to 1,669.6). Low socioeconomic and minority status were significantly associated with nontreatment. Conclusion Remediable physical impairments were prevalent and poorly addressed among patients with metastatic breast cancer, drastically so in the outpatient setting. Undertreatment was particularly prominent among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.