Search

Managing LBP via clinical practice guidelines in healthcare settings is recommended, yet burgeoning evidence suggests adherence is suboptimal in emergency department settings. Whether adherence differs between public and private settings is unknown. A retrospective audit of two Australian emergency departments matched 86 private patients to 86 public patients by age (± 5 years), sex (male/female) and LBP duration (first time/history of LBP). Patient charts were reviewed according to the Australian clinical guidelines for the management of LBP. Guidelines were considered individually and via a collective guideline adherence score (GAS). Management GAS was lower in private patients compared to public patients (d [95 %CI]: −0.67 [−0.98, −0.36], P < 0.001). Public patients were more likely to have documentation of guideline-based advice (OR [95 %CI]: 4.4 [2.4, 8.4], P < 0.001) and less likely to be sent for imaging (OR [95 %CI]: 5.0 [2.6, 9.4], P < 0.001). Private patients were more likely to have documented screening for psychosocial risk factors (OR [95 %CI]: 21.8 [9.1, 52.1], P < 0.001) and more likely to receive guideline-based medication prescriptions at patient discharge (OR [95 %CI]: 2.2 [1.2, 4.2], P = 0.013). Differences exist in public and private hospital emergency department guideline adherence. Exploring barriers and facilitators underpinning these differences will assist in guiding future implementation science approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (eg, interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials * DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in 6 databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. * RESULTS: Of 17 637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD], -1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.71, 5.16; k = 7 trials; N = 719 participants; Scale: 0-100; GRADE: Low) or physical functioning (MD, -0.27; 95% CI: -1.02, 0.49; 95% prediction interval [PI]: -2.04, 1.51; k = 6; N = 567; Scale: 0-10; GRADE: Low) in the short term and at later followups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. * CONCLUSION: While evidence gaps exist, per current evidence, it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. tDESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. * LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. * DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. * RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. * CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SYNOPSIS: Low back pain classification systems are structured assessments used to guide choices of more specific treatments. Classification systems examined in randomized controlled trials have limited effects on pain intensity and disability compared to nonclassified interventions. Potential reasons for the lack of efficacy include (1) failing to assess multidimensional factors that contribute to pain, (2) relying on clinician judgement, (3) low accessibility, and (4) poor classification reliability. Overcoming these limitations is critical to deciding whether classification systems can improve clinical practice. Only once these limitations are addressed, can we feel certain about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of classification systems. This Viewpoint guides the reader through some limitations of common classification approaches and presents a path forward to open-access, reliable, and multidimensional precision medicine for managing low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

*OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain. *DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. *LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking. *STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals. *DATA SYNTHESIS: Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.*RESULTS: Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I² = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. * CONCLUSION: We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). * DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. * LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded. * DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration. * RESULTS: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. * CONCLUSION: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint. * DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. * LITERATURE SEARCH: Seven electronic databases and reference lists of included studies and previous reviews were searched. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of clusters of clinical tests for sacroiliac joint pain were included. * DATA SYNTHESIS: Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was employed. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to judge credibility of evidence. * RESULTS: From 2195 records identified in the search, 5 studies were included that assessed clusters of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint. The estimated positive likelihood ratio was 2.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1. 2, 3.9 ), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.33 (95% Cl: 0.11, 0.72), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 9.01 (95% Cl: 1.72, 28.4). The GRADE ratings for the outcomes were of very low certainty. Assuming a point prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain of 20%, we calculated a positive posterior probability of 35% (95% Cl: 32%, 37%) and negative posterior probability of 8% (95% Cl: 6%, 10%) * CONCLUSION: A positive result on a sacroiliac joint pain provocation test cluster gives the clinician 35% certainty of having correctly identified sacroiliac joint pain. Clusters of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint do not provide sufnumber ficient diagnostic accuracy for ruling in the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain. Clinicians can rule out the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain with more confidence: the negative posttest probability indicates that the clinician can conclude with 92% certainty that a negative test result is correct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020,6 meta-analyses comparing arthroscopic hip surgery to physical therapy were published. All included the same 3 randomized controlled trials, and none used methods suitable for the analysis of fewer than 5 studies. When there are fewer than 5 studies and heterogeneity, a random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp- Sidik-Jonkman adjustment for a maximally conservative estimate should be employed; if reliable prior information is available, a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis should be employed. Our re-analysis, which employed the appropriate model, found that there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that surgery is superior to physical therapy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. Further randomized controlled trials are required to resolve the clinical question of what the best treatment approach is for FAI syndrome. We provide readers with tools to conduct appropriate meta-analysis of fewer than 5 trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and adults with chronic low back pain (≥12weeks) commonly experience sleep impairments (e.g., insomnia, sleep disturbance). This study examined the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep in adults with chronic low back pain. Six databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 2 June 2021 for randomised controlled trials. Pairwise random-effect meta-analysis estimated standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) at end-of-intervention follow-up. Nineteen studies (participants: 1348) were included. When compared to control, non-pharmacological interventions improved sleep (g [95%CI]: −0.33 [-0.56, −0.11], p = 0.004, small effect, I2 = 59.3%; n = 879; studies: n = 13; GRADE: low). This small improvement in sleep was associated with a moderate reduction in pain intensity (−0.69 [-1.00, −0.38], p < 0.001, I2 = 75.3%; n = 812; studies: n = 12; GRADE: very low) and no changes in back-related disability (−0.50 [-1.13, 0.14], p = 0.129, I2 = 91.4%; n = 517; studies: n = 6; GRADE: low). Notably, all eligible studies reported interventions primarily aimed to reduce pain, although our search criteria were not limited to pain interventions. Key limitations were data paucity and high risk of bias. Future research should investigate sleep-based interventions (i.e., those purposely designed to improve sleep) using subjective and objective measures across a range of sleep domains (CRD42021275227). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity is a potent stimulus for vascular remodeling, leading to a marked decrease in conduit artery diameter. However, little is known about the impact of physical inactivity on artery wall thickness or wall:lumen ratio or the potential of exercise countermeasures to modify artery wall thickness. The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of 60 days of bed rest, with or without exercise countermeasures, on carotid and superficial femoral artery wall thickness. Eighteen men were assigned to bed rest (second Berlin Bed Rest Study) and randomly allocated to control, resistive exercise, or resistive vibration exercise. Both exercise countermeasures were applied 3 times per week while the subjects were in the supine position on the bed. Sonography was used to examine baseline diameter and wall thickness of the carotid and femoral arteries. Bed rest decreased diameter of the superficial femoral artery (P=0.001) but not the carotid artery (P=0.29). Bed rest induced a significant increase in carotid and superficial femoral artery wall thickness (P=0.007 and 0.03) and wall:lumen ratio (P=0.009 and 0.001). Exercise prevented the increase in wall thickness of the carotid artery. In addition, exercise partly prevented the increased wall:lumen ratio in the superficial femoral artery. In conclusion, 8 weeks of bed rest resulted in approximately 20% increase in conduit artery wall thickness. Exercise countermeasures completely (carotid artery) or partly (superficial femoral artery) abolished the increase in wall thickness. These findings suggest that conduit artery wall thickness, a vascular characteristic associated previously with atherosclerosis, can rapidly adapt to physical inactivity and exercise in humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]