Search

INTRODUCTION: Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol-both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes-included to blind the study objective from participants-are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023-00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain-the SALuBRITY trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05778396.

ObjectiveTo evaluate longer term symptoms and health outcomes associated with post-covid-19 condition within a cohort of individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignPopulation based, longitudinal cohort.SettingGeneral population of canton of Zurich, Switzerland.Participants1106 adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not vaccinated before infection and 628 adults who did not have an infection.Main outcome measuresTrajectories of self-reported health status and covid-19 related symptoms between months six, 12, 18, and 24 after infection and excess risk of symptoms at six months after infection compared with individuals who had no infection.Results22.9% (95% confidence interval 20.4% to 25.6%) of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 did not fully recover by six months. The proportion of individuals who had an infection who reported not having recovered decreased to 18.5% (16.2% to 21.1%) at 12 months and 17.2% (14.0% to 20.8%) at 24 months after infection. When assessing changes in self-reported health status, most participants had continued recovery (68.4% (63.8% to 72.6%)) or had an overall improvement (13.5% (10.6% to 17.2%)) over time. Yet, 5.2% (3.5% to 7.7%) had a worsening in health status and 4.4% (2.9% to 6.7%) had alternating periods of recovery and health impairment. The point prevalence and severity of covid-19 related symptoms also decreased over time, with 18.1% (14.8% to 21.9%) reporting symptoms at 24 months. 8.9% (6.5% to 11.2%) of participants reported symptoms at all four follow-up time points, while in 12.5% (9.8% to 15.9%) symptoms were alternatingly absent and present. Symptom prevalence was higher among individuals who were infected compared with those who were not at six months (adjusted risk difference 17.0% (11.5% to 22.4%)). Excess risk (adjusted risk difference) for individual symptoms among those infected ranged from 2% to 10%, with the highest excess risks observed for altered taste or smell (9.8% (7.7% to 11.8%)), post-exertional malaise (9.4% (6.1% to 12.7%)), fatigue (5.4% (1.2% to 9.5%)), dyspnoea (7.8% (5.2% to 10.4%)), and reduced concentration (8.3% (6.0% to 10.7%)) and memory (5.7% (3.5% to 7.9%)).ConclusionsUp to 18% of individuals who were not vaccinated before infection had post-covid-19 condition up to two years after infection, with evidence of excess symptom risk compared with controls. Effective interventions are needed to reduce the burden of post-covid-19 condition. Use of multiple outcome measures and consideration of the expected rates of recovery and heterogeneity in symptom trajectories are important in the design and interpretation of clinical trials.RegistrationsISRCTN18181860, .

Physical activity (PA) is of key importance for health among healthy persons and individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PA has multiple dimensions that can be assessed and quantified objectively using activity monitors. Moreover, as shown in the published literature, variable methodologies have been used to date to quantify PA among individuals with COPD, precluding clear comparisons of outcomes across studies. The present paper aims to provide a summary of the available literature for the rationale behind using objectively measured PA and proposes a standardized methodology for assessment, including standard operating procedures for future research. The present paper, therefore, describes the concept of PA, reports on the importance of PA, summarizes the dimensions of PA, provides a standard operating procedure on how to monitor PA using objective assessments, and describes the psychometric properties of objectively measured PA. The present international task force recommends implementation of the standard operating procedure for PA data collection and reporting in the future. This should further clarify the relationship between PA and clinical outcomes, test the impact of treatment interventions on PA in individuals with COPD, and successfully propose a PA endpoint for regulatory qualification in the future.

The objective of this document was to standardise published cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) protocols for improved interpretation in clinical settings and multicentre research projects. This document: 1) summarises the protocols and procedures used in published studies focusing on incremental CPET in chronic lung conditions; 2) presents standard incremental protocols for CPET on a stationary cycle ergometer and a treadmill; and 3) provides patients' perspectives on CPET obtained through an online survey supported by the European Lung Foundation. We systematically reviewed published studies obtained from EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2017. Of 7914 identified studies, 595 studies with 26 523 subjects were included. The literature supports a test protocol with a resting phase lasting at least 3 min, a 3-min unloaded phase, and an 8- to 12-min incremental phase with work rate increased linearly at least every minute, followed by a recovery phase of at least 2-3 min. Patients responding to the survey (n=295) perceived CPET as highly beneficial for their diagnostic assessment and informed the Task Force consensus. Future research should focus on the individualised estimation of optimal work rate increments across different lung diseases, and the collection of robust normative data.

BackgroundCOPD increases susceptibility to sleep disturbances, which may in turn predispose to increased respiratory symptoms. The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a population-based sample, the relationship between subjective sleep quality and risk of COPD exacerbations.MethodsData were obtained from the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study. Participants with COPD who had completed 18 months of follow-up were included. Sleep quality was measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and a three-factor analysis. Symptom-based (dyspnea or sputum change ≥ 48 h) and event-based (symptoms plus medication or unscheduled health services use) exacerbations were assessed. Association of PSQI with exacerbation rate was assessed by using negative binomial regression. Exacerbation-free survival was also assessed.ResultsA total of 480 participants with COPD were studied, including 185 with one or more exacerbations during follow-up and 203 with poor baseline sleep quality (PSQI score > 5). Participants with subsequent symptom-based exacerbations had higher median baseline PSQI scores than those without (6.0 [interquartile range, 3.0-8.0] vs 5.0 [interquartile range, 2.0-7.0]; P = .01), and they were more likely to have baseline PSQI scores > 5 (50.3% vs 37.3%; P = .01). Higher PSQI scores were associated with increased symptom-based exacerbation risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; P = .02) and event-based exacerbation risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .048). The association occurred mainly in those with undiagnosed COPD. Strongest associations were with Factor 3 (sleep disturbances and daytime dysfunction). Time to symptom-based exacerbation was shorter in participants with poor sleep quality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.03).ConclusionsHigher baseline PSQI scores were associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbation over 18 months' prospective follow-up.

Objectives: To assess the current quality of surgical outcome reporting in the medical literature and to provide recommendations for improvement. Background: In 1996, The Lancet labeled surgery as a "comic opera" mostly referring to the poor quality of outcome reporting in the literature impeding improvement in surgical quality and patient care. Methods: We screened 3 first-tier and 2 second-tier surgical journals, as well as 3 leading medical journals for original articles reporting on results of surgical procedures published over a recent 18-month period. The quality of outcome reporting was assessed using a prespecified 12-item checklist. Results: Six hundred twenty-seven articles reporting surgical outcomes were analyzed, including 125 randomized controlled trials. Only 1 (0.2%) article met all 12 criteria of the checklist, whereas 356 articles (57%) fulfilled less than half of the criteria. The poorest reporting was on cumulative morbidity burden, which was missing in 94% of articles (n= 591) as well as patient-reported outcomes missing in 83% of publications (n=518). Comparing journal groups for the individual criterion, we found moderate to very strong statistical evidence for better quality of reporting in high versus lower impact journals for 7 of 12 criteria and strong statistical evidence for better reporting of patientreported outcomes in medical versus surgical journals (P<0·001). Conclusions: The quality of outcomes reporting in the medical literature remains poor, lacking improvement over the past 20 years onmost key end points. The implementation of standardized outcome reporting is urgently needed to minimize biased interpretation of data thereby enabling improved patient care and the elaboration of meaningful guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPhysical inactivity across the lifespan remains a public health issue for many developed countries. Inactivity has contributed considerably to the pervasiveness of lifestyle diseases. Government, national and local agencies and organizations have been unable to systematically, and in a coordinated way, translate behavioral research into practice that makes a difference at a population level. One approach for mobilizing multi-level efforts to improve the environment for physical activity is to engage in a process of citizen science. Citizen Science here is defined as a participatory research approach involving members of the public working closely with research investigators to initiate and advance scientific research projects. However, there are no common measures or protocols to guide citizen science research at the local community setting.ObjectivesWe describe overarching categories of constructs that can be considered when designing citizen science projects expected to yield multi-level interventions, and provide an example of the citizen science approach to promoting PA. We also recommend potential measures across different levels of impact.DiscussionEncouraging some consistency in measurement across studies will potentially accelerate the efficiency with which citizen science participatory research provides new insights into and solutions to the behaviorally-based public health issues that drive most of morbidity and mortality. The measures described in this paper abide by four fundamental principles specifically selected for inclusion in citizen science projects: feasibility, accuracy, propriety, and utility. The choice of measures will take into account the potential resources available for outcome and process evaluation. Our intent is to emphasize the importance for all citizen science participatory projects to follow an evidence-based approach and ensure that they incorporate an appropriate assessment protocol.ConclusionsWe provided the rationale for and a list of contextual factors along with specific examples of measures to encourage consistency among studies that plan to use a citizen science participatory approach. The potential of this approach to promote health and wellbeing in communities is high and we hope that we have provided the tools needed to optimally promote synergistic gains in knowledge across a range of Citizen Science participatory projects.