Search

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (e.g. interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of non-pharmacological and non-surgicaltreatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in six 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 17637 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 non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD] : -1.77, 95%-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%-PI: [-2.04; 1.51], k = 6 , N = 567, Scale: 0-10, GRADE: Low) in the short-term and at later follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. CONCLUSION: Whilst 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 non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023391601).

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: 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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063 .

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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-5. Epub: 5 April 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11658 .

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]; I 2 = 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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):175-191. Epub 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10731 .

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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761 .

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% CI: 0.11, 0.72), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 9.01 (95% CI: 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% CI: 32%, 37%) and negative posterior probability of 8% (95% CI: 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 sufficient 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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(9):422-431. Epub 1 Jul 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10469 .