Search

Background: There is clear evidence demonstrating the benefits of physical activity (PA) on pain and overall health, however, PA is challenging for many individuals living with chronic pain. Even non‐exercise specialists can (cost) effectively promote PA, but many health professionals report a number of barriers in providing guidance on PA, suggesting that it is not consistently promoted. This expert position paper summarizes the evidence and provides five recommendations for health professionals to assess, advise and support individuals living with any chronic pain condition with a long life expectancy in adopting and sustaining physically active lifestyles. Methods: This position paper was prepared by the 'On The Move' Task Force of the European Pain Federation EFIC. Final recommendations were endorsed by the European Pain Forum, Pain Alliance Europe and the Executive Board of EFIC. Results: We recommend that all health professionals (1) Take a history of the persons' PA levels, and put PA on the agenda, (2) Advise that PA is important and safe for individuals living with chronic pain, (3) Deliver a brief PA intervention and support individuals living with chronic pain in becoming physically active, (4) Discuss acceptable levels of PA‐related soreness and pain and (5) Provide ongoing support in staying physically active. Significance: Physical activity is safe and offers several advantages, including general health benefits, low risk of side effects, low cost and not requiring access to healthcare. Adoption of these recommendations can improve the quality of care and life of individuals living with chronic pain and reduce their overall health risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with chronic headaches and chronic oro‐facial pain commonly present psychosocial issues that can affect social interactions. A possible reason could be that patients with these disorders might present impairments in facial recognition, laterality judgement and also alexithymia. However, a systematic review summarizing the effects of facial emotion recognition, laterality judgement and alexithymia in individuals with headaches and oro‐facial pain is still not available. Aim: The main objective of this systematic review (SR) and meta‐analysis (MA) was to compile and synthesize the evidence on the occurrence of alexithymia, deficits in laterality or left–right (LR) recognition and/or facial emotion recognition (FER) in patients with chronic headache and facial pain. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in five databases (up to September 2023) and a manual search to identify relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were alexithymia scores, speed and accuracy in LR and/or FER, or any other quantitative data assessing body image distortions. The screening process, data extraction, risk of bias and data analysis were performed by two independent assessors following standards for systematic reviews. Results: From 1395 manuscripts found, only 34 studies met the criteria. The overall quality/certainty of the evidence was very low. Although the results should be interpreted carefully, individuals with chronic headaches showed significantly higher levels of alexithymia when compared to healthy individuals. No conclusive results were found for the other variables of interest. Conclusion: Although the overall evidence from this review is very low, people with chronic primary headaches and oro‐facial pain could be regularly screened for alexithymia to guarantee appropriate management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence from new health technologies is growing, along with demands for evidence to inform policy decisions, creating challenges in completing health technology assessments (HTAs)/systematic reviews (SRs) in a timely manner. Software can decrease the time and burden by automating the process, but evidence validating such software is limited. We tested the accuracy of RobotReviewer, a semi-autonomous risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool, and its agreement with human reviewers. Methods: Two reviewers independently conducted RoB assessments on a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and their consensus ratings were compared with those generated by RobotReviewer. Agreement with the human reviewers was assessed using percent agreement and weighted kappa (K). The accuracy of RobotReviewer was also assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve in comparison to the consensus agreement of the human reviewers. Results: The study included 372 RCTs. Inter-rater reliability ranged from K = -0.06 (no agreement) for blinding of participants and personnel to K = 0.62 (good agreement) for random sequence generation (excluding overall RoB). RobotReviewer was found to use a high percentage of "irrelevant supporting quotations" to complement RoB assessments for blinding of participants and personnel (72.6%), blinding of outcome assessment (70.4%), and allocation concealment (54.3%). Conclusion: RobotReviewer can help with risk of bias assessment of RCTs but cannot replace human evaluations. Thus, reviewers should check and validate RoB assessments from RobotReviewer by consulting the original article when not relevant supporting quotations are provided by RobotReviewer. This consultation is in line with the recommendation provided by the developers.

Background: There is an agreement that the methodological quality of randomized trials should be assessed in systematic reviews, but there is a debate on how this should be done. We conducted a construct validation study of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, which is widely used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy and rehabilitation. Methods: We analyzed 345 trials that were included in Cochrane reviews and for which a PEDro summary score was available. We used one- and two-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) models to study the psychometric properties of the PEDro scale and assessed the items' difficulty and discrimination parameters. We ran goodness of fit post estimations and examined the IRT unidimensionality assumption with a multidimensional IRT (MIRT) model. Results: Out of a maximum of 10, the mean PEDro summary score was 5.46 (SD = 1.51). The allocation concealment and intention-to-treat scale items contributed most of the information on the underlying construct (with discriminations of 1.79 and 2.05, respectively) at similar difficulties (0.63 and 0.65, respectively). The other items provided little additional information and did not distinguish trials of different quality. There was substantial evidence of departure from the unidimensionality assumption, suggesting that the PEDro items relate to more than one latent trait. Conclusions: Our findings question the construct validity of the PEDro scale to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials. PEDro summary scores should not be used; rather, the physiotherapy community should consider working with the individual items of the scale.

External validity is an important parameter that needs to be considered for decision making in health research, but no widely accepted measurement tool for the assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exists. One of the most limiting factors for creating such a tool is probably the substantial heterogeneity and lack of consensus in this field. The objective of this study was to reach consensus on a definition of external validity and on criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs included in systematic reviews. A three‐round online Delphi study was conducted. The development of the Delphi survey was based on findings from a previous systematic review. Potential panelists were identified through a comprehensive web search. Consensus was reached when at least 67% of the panelists agreed to a proposal. Eighty‐four panelists from different countries and various disciplines participated in at least one round of this study. Consensus was reached on the definition of external validity ("External validity is the extent to which results of trials provide an acceptable basis for generalization to other circumstances such as variations in populations, settings, interventions, outcomes, or other relevant contextual factors"), and on 14 criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. The results of this Delphi study provide a consensus‐based reference standard for future tool development. Future research should focus on adapting, pilot testing, and validating these criteria to develop measurement tools for the assessment of external validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the study is to establish absolute reliability and concurrent validity between hand-held dynamometers (HHDs) and isokinetic dynamometers (IDs) in lower extremity peak torque assessment. Medline, Embase, CINAHL databases were searched for studies related to psychometric properties in muscle dynamometry. Studies considering standard error of measurement SEM (%) or limit of agreement LOA (%) expressed as percentage of the mean, were considered to establish absolute reliability while studies using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were considered to establish concurrent validity between dynamometers. In total, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The COSMIN checklist classified them between fair and poor. Using HHDs, knee extension LOA (%) was 33.59%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.91 to 43.26 and ankle plantar flexion LOA (%) was 48.87%, CI 35.19 to 62.56. Using IDs, hip adduction and extension; knee flexion and extension; and ankle dorsiflexion showed LOA (%) under 15%. Lower hip, knee, and ankle LOA (%) were obtained using an ID compared to HHD. ICC between devices ranged between 0.62, CI (0.37 to 0.87) for ankle dorsiflexion to 0.94, IC (0.91to 0.98) for hip adduction. Very high correlation were found for hip adductors and hip flexors and moderate correlations for knee flexors/extensors and ankle plantar/dorsiflexors.

To determine which factors influence and better differentiate between good and poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with myogenous TMD and which cut-off could predict a good/poor OHRQoL. Fifty-eight women with myogenous TMD were included. Factors of interest were collected (i.e., demographic variables, depression symptoms (Symptom Checklist-90 R (RDC/TMD)), pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale), jaw function (Mandibular Functional Limitation Questionnaire), and OHRQoL (Oral Health Impact Profile-14). A multivariable regression model, logistic regression, and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were conducted. Depression symptoms (β = 0.139) and jaw function (β = 0.478) were significantly associated with OHRQoL in the multivariable model. The best model to discriminate between good/poor OHRQoL included only jaw function (AUC = 0.90), with the best cut-off of 17 points (sensitivity: 0.93; specificity: 0.79). Depression symptoms and jaw function were significantly associated with OHRQoL. The best model and cut-off to discriminate good/poor OHRQoL included only jaw function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the effectiveness of laser therapy for managing patients with orofacial pain (OFP). In addition, to determine which parameters provide the best treatment effects to reduce pain, improve function, and quality of life in adults with OFP. Systematic review. Searches were conducted in six databases; no date or language restrictions were applied. Studies involving adults with OFP treated with laser therapy were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB-2. A meta-analysis was structured around the OFP type, and outcomes. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the overall certainty of the evidence. Eighty-nine studies were included. Most studies (n = 72, 80.9%) were considered to have a high RoB. The results showed that laser therapy was better than placebo in improving pain, maximal mouth open (MMO), protrusion, and tenderness at the final assessment, but with a low or moderate level of evidence. The best lasers and parameters to reduce pain are diode or gallium–aluminum–arsenide (GaAlAs) lasers, a wavelength of 400–800 or 800–1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2. Laser therapy was better than placebo to improve pain, MMO, protrusion, and tenderness. Also, it was better than occlusal splint to improve pain, but not better than TENS and medication. Laser therapy was found to be good in improving pain, maximal mouth opening, jaw protrusion, and tenderness at the end of the treatment. For patients with all types of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) (myogenous, arthrogenous, and mixed), the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode or gallium–aluminum–arsenide (GaAlAs) laser, wavelength of 400–800 or 800–1500 nm, and a dosage <25 J/cm2. For patients with arthrogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: Diode laser and a wavelength between 400 and 800 nm. For patients with myogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode laser, wavelength between 800 and 1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2. For patients with mixed TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode, GaAlAs, or infrared laser, a wavelength of 800–1500 nm, a dosage >100 J/cm2, and an application time between 15 and 30 s or >60 seconds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]