Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist.

OBJECTIVE: How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain. DATA SOURCES: This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data. RESULTS: We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention. CONCLUSION: The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis. DESIGN: A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide. METHODS: We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments. RESULTS: In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17. CONCLUSION: With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

Treatment classifications and interventions for neck pain: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to provide an overview of how neck pain is classified in the literature, define and group conservative interventions into 'nodes', and develop draft networks of interventions in preparation for a network meta-analysis (NMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We performed a scoping review. For feasibility reasons, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) via neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2014. We used standardized data extraction forms to extract data about classification of neck pain and interventions evaluated in the included RCTs. We calculated frequencies of neck pain classifications and grouped interventions into nodes based on the definitions used in Cochrane reviews. Draft network graphs comparing interventions were constructed using the online Shiny R application CINEMA. RESULTS: We included 242 RCTs from seven CPGs, evaluating 28,581 patients. We found three different classification systems of which The Neck Pain Task Force classification was used most often. We defined and grouped all interventions into 19 discrete potential nodes. CONCLUSION: We found a wide variation in neck pain classifications and conservative interventions. Grouping the interventions was challenging and needs further evaluation before conducting a final NMA.

Elucidating the binding mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 NSP6-TBK1 and structure-based designing of phytocompounds inhibitors for instigating the host immune response.

SARS-CoV-2, also referred to as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is the virus responsible for causing COVID-19, an infectious disease that emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Among its crucial functions, NSP6 plays a vital role in evading the human immune system by directly interacting with a receptor called TANK-binding kinase (TBK1), leading to the suppression of IFNß production. Consequently, in the present study we used the structural and biophysical approaches to analyze the effect of newly emerged mutations on the binding of NSP6 and TBK1. Among the identified mutations, four (F35G, L37F, L125F, and I162T) were found to significantly destabilize the structure of NSP6. Furthermore, the molecular docking analysis highlighted that the mutant NSP6 displayed its highest binding affinity with TBK1, exhibiting docking scores of -1436.2 for the wildtype and -1723.2, -1788.6, -1510.2, and -1551.7 for the F35G, L37F, L125F, and I162T mutants, respectively. This suggests the potential for an enhanced immune system evasion capability of NSP6. Particularly, the F35G mutation exhibited the strongest binding affinity, supported by a calculated binding free energy of -172.19 kcal/mol. To disrupt the binding between NSP6 and TBK1, we conducted virtual drug screening to develop a novel inhibitor derived from natural products. From this screening, we identified the top 5 hit compounds as the most promising candidates with a docking score of -6.59 kcal/mol, -6.52 kcal/mol, -6.32 kcal/mol, -6.22 kcal/mol, and -6.21 kcal/mol. The molecular dynamic simulation of top 3 hits further verified the dynamic stability of drugs-NSP6 complexes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insight into the higher infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 new variants and a strong rationale for the development of novel drugs against NSP6.

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy (VBH) among Healthcare Professionals of Pakistan, a Nationwide Survey.

Background: The waning vaccine immunity and emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 led health authorities across the globe to administer booster doses (BDs) of the COVID-19 vaccine. Hence, the current study aimed to assess the COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) amongst Pakistani healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A nationwide survey-based study was carried out from April 2022 to May 2022. The online self-administered questionnaire was utilized to collect data regarding demographics (age, gender, marital status, profession, residential area, and province), COVID-19 infection history (infection history, onset, and clinical severity of disease), previous COVID-19 vaccination (type of vaccination and the number of doses), attitudes towards BDs (acceptance, rejection, and hesitancy), and psychological drivers of VBH (perceived effectiveness, vaccine safety, risk/benefit ratio, and vaccine type preference). We assessed the association between the dependent variable attitudes of study participants, regarding BDs and independent variables (demographics, COVID-19 infection history, previous COVID-19 vaccination, and psychological drivers of VBH), by using the Chi-square test/Fisher exact test. Results: Among the 1164 study participants, 51.4% were male, and 80.4% were medical professionals. The half of study participants (52.1%) agreed to take the COVID-19 vaccine BD or had already taken it, while the rest of them refused (34.7%) or hesitated (24.2%) to take it. These attitudes of the participants were significantly associated (p < 0.001) with psychological divers about the COVID-19 vaccine BD. Conclusion: This study revealed that Pakistani HCPs hesitant to take the COVID-19 vaccine BD had concerns about the safety, efficacy, and risk/benefits ratio of the vaccine's BD. To eliminate the hesitancy, regarding BD in HCPs, certain educational strategies should be implemented by health authorities to address the concerns of HCPs.