Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Approximately 21% of the world's population suffers from musculoskeletal conditions, often associated with sensations of stiff muscles. Targeted therapy requires knowing whether typically involved muscles are objectively stiffer compared to asymptomatic individuals. Muscle stiffness is quantified using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). Publications on SWE-based comparisons of muscle stiffness between individuals with and without musculoskeletal pain are increasing rapidly. This work reviewed and mapped the existing evidence regarding objectively measured muscle stiffness in musculoskeletal pain conditions and surveyed current methods of applying SWE to measure muscle stiffness. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL using the keywords "muscle stiffness", "shear wave elastography", "pain", "asymptomatic controls" and synonyms. The search was supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar. Included articles were critically appraised with the AXIS tool, supplemented by items related to SWE methods. Results were visually mapped and narratively described. RESULTS: Thirty of 137 identified articles were included. High-quality evidence was missing. The results comprise studies reporting lower stiffness in symptomatic participants, no differences between groups and higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals. Results differed between pain conditions and muscles, and also between studies that examined the same muscle(s) and pathology. The methods of the application of SWE were inconsistent and the reporting was often incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence regarding the objective stiffness of muscles in musculoskeletal pain conditions is conflicting. Methodological differences may explain most of the inconsistencies between findings. Methodological standards for SWE measurements of muscles are urgently required.

Interventions for preventing back pain among office workers - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Back pain is common in the working population. This systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the effects of interventions for preventing back pain among office workers. METHODS: We searched eight databases and additional sources up to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cluster RCT focusing on office workers, comparing work-related interventions aimed at preventing back pain (defined as pain in any part of the spine) to a control condition and assessing back pain and/or work absence. Further outcomes considered were adverse events and participants' satisfaction. We performed both frequentist and component NMA. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using RoB 2 and certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We screened 9809 records and included 24 studies with a total of 7080 participants. RoB was assessed as "some concerns" or "high" for all studies and outcomes. Included studies investigated multicomponent interventions, ergonomics, physical activity, education, behavioral interventions and no/minimal interventions. Effects were mostly not statistically significant and based on low/very low CoE. Physical activity probably reduces days of work absence slightly [mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07- -0.13], and combining physical activity and ergonomics may reduce back pain intensity (standardized MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.80- -0.02) when compared to no/minimal intervention. A large proportion of participants were satisfied with the interventions, adverse events were rarely assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We observed mostly minor effects of interventions on back pain and work absence among office workers. The practical relevance of these effects is questionable.

Using GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks to support the process of health policy-making: an example application regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.

BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks are well-known tools that enable guideline panels to structure the process of developing recommendations and making decisions in healthcare and public health. To date, they have not regularly been used for health policy-making. This article aims to illustrate the application of the GRADE EtD frameworks in the process of nutrition-related policy-making for a European country. METHODS: Based on methodological guidance by the GRADE Working Group and the findings of our recently published scoping review, we illustrate the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, by applying the EtD frameworks to a fictitious example. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation based on energy density was chosen as an example application. RESULTS: A fictitious guideline panel was convened by a national nutrition association to develop a population-level recommendation on SSB taxation aiming to reduce the burden of overweight and obesity. Exemplary evidence was summarized for each EtD criterion and conclusions were drawn based on all judgements made in relation to each criterion. As a result of the high priority to reduce the burden of obesity and because of the moderate desirable effects on health outcomes, but considering scarce or varying research evidence for other EtD criteria, the panel made a conditional recommendation for SSB taxation. Decision-makers may opt for conducting a pilot study prior to implementing the policy on a national level. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE EtD frameworks can be used by guideline panels to make the process of developing recommendations in the field of health policy more systematic, transparent and comprehensible.

Effects of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a major cause of disability and the leading cause of death worldwide. To reduce mortality and morbidity, prevention strategies such as following an optimal diet are crucial. In recent years, low-gluten and gluten-free diets have gained strong popularity in the general population. However, study results on the benefits of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet are conflicting, and it is unclear whether a gluten-reduced diet has an effect on the primary prevention of CVD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet for the primary prevention of CVD in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science up to June 2021 without language restrictions or restrictions regarding publication status. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing or unpublished trials and checked reference lists of included studies as well as relevant systematic reviews for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), such as prospective cohort studies, comparing a low-gluten or gluten-free diet or providing advice to decrease gluten consumption with no intervention, diet as usual, or a reference gluten-intake category. The population of interest comprised adults from the general population, including those at increased risk for CVD (primary prevention). We excluded cluster-RCTs, case-control studies, studies focusing on participants with a previous myocardial infarction and/or stroke, participants who have undergone a revascularisation procedure as well as participants with angina or angiographically-defined coronary heart disease, with a confirmed diagnosis of coeliac disease or with type 1 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies in a two-step procedure following Cochrane methods. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2) and the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT and three NRSIs (with an observational design reporting data on four cohorts: Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS), Nurses' Health Study (NHS-I), NHS-II, UK Biobank) met the inclusion criteria. The RCT was conducted in Italy (60 participants, mean age 41 ± 12.1 years), two NRSIs (three cohorts, HPFS, NHS-I, NHS II) were conducted across the USA (269,282 health professionals aged 24 to 75 years) and one NRSI (Biobank cohort) was conducted across the UK (159,265 participants aged 49 to 62 years). Two NRSIs reported that the lowest gluten intake ranged between 0.0 g/day and 3.4 g/day and the highest gluten intake between 6.2 g/day and 38.4 g/day. The NRSI reporting data from the UK Biobank referred to a median gluten intake of 8.5 g/day with an interquartile range from 5.1 g/day to 12.4 g/day without providing low- and high-intake categories. Cardiovascular mortality From a total of 269,282 participants, 3364 (1.3%) died due to cardiovascular events during 26 years of follow-up. Low-certainty evidence may show no association between gluten intake and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for low- versus high-gluten intake 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06; 2 NRSIs (3 cohorts)). All-cause mortality From a total of 159,265 participants, 6259 (3.9%) died during 11.1 years of follow-up. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake is associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted HR for low vs high gluten intake 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01; 1 NRSI (1 cohort)). Myocardial infarction  From a total of 110,017 participants, 4243 (3.9%) participants developed non-fatal myocardial infarction within 26 years. Low-certainty evidence suggested that gluten intake may not be associated with the development of non-fatal myocardial infarction (adjusted HR for low versus high gluten intake 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.10; 1 NRSI (2 cohorts)). Lowering gluten intake by 5 g/day also showed no association on the primary prevention of non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction (composite endpoint) in linear dose-response meta-analyses (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06; 1 NRSI (2 cohorts)). Coronary risk factors  Type 2 diabetes From a total of 202,114 participants, 15,947 (8.0%) developed type 2 diabetes after a follow-up between 22 and 28 years. There was low-certainty evidence that a lower compared with a higher gluten intake may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes (adjusted HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22; 1 NRSI (3 cohorts)). Furthermore, lowering gluten intake by 5 g/day may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes in linear dose-response meta-analyses (adjusted HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.16; 1 NRSI (3 cohorts)). Blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein level, body mass index (BMI) After six months of follow-up, very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake affects systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -6.9, 95% CI -17.1 to 3.3 mmHg). There was also no difference between the interventions for diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.8, 95% CI -5.9 to 4.3 mmHg), low-density lipoprotein levels (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.3 mmol/L) and BMI (MD -0.1, 95% CI -3.3 to 3.1 kg/m²).  No study reported data on adverse events or on other outcomes. Funding sources did not appear to have distorted the results in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake is associated with all-cause mortality. Our findings also indicate that low-certainty evidence may show little or no association between gluten intake and cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Low-certainty evidence suggested that a lower compared with a higher gluten intake may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes - a major cardiovascular risk factor. For other cardiovascular risk factors it is unclear whether there is a difference between a gluten-free and normal diet. Given the limited findings from this review predominantly based on observational studies, no recommendations for practice can be made.

Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education.

Today, keeping up with the fast evolving evidence is more challenging than ever for practising physicians. A huge number of studies are published every day, and it is no longer possible to read all the relevant individual studies. Many physicians prefer attending continuing medical education (CME) to reading international scientific publications. Consequently, it is critical that CME is based on the best available evidence and presented in an unbiased manner free of conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews in particular can thus provide a valuable resource of up-to-date and high-quality information on health care questions for CME providers. Of note, systematic reviews might become outdated quickly. Furthermore, some systematic reviews are fraught with limitations such as poor methodology and conduct or incomplete and misleading reporting. This article provides a brief overview of systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, outlines how systematic reviews can be "kept alive" using today's digital opportunities and points to several common problems of systematic reviews with suggestions for solutions.

Work-related interventions for preventing back pain-protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context. METHODS: We will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021232469.