Popping pills in youth elite sports - fact or fiction? A 36-week prospective cohort study of analgesic use in 1195 youth elite athletes and student controls.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate analgesic use in a cohort of Danish youth elite athletes, and compare weekly analgesic use over 36 weeks to student controls. We also investigated and compared reasons for analgesic use and types of analgesics used. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: 690 youth elite athletes (44% females) and 505 student controls (59% females) (age 15-20 years) provided weekly reports on analgesic use over 36 weeks. We asked about number of days with analgesic use, reasons for use, and types of analgesics used. Prevalence and frequency of analgesic use was compared between youth elite athletes and student controls using mixed effects logistic regression and mixed effects Poisson regression models. Reasons for and types of analgesics used was compared between groups using Chi-square tests. Subgroup analyses were performed, stratified by sex. RESULTS: Overall, athletes had lower odds of analgesic use (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95) compared with student controls. The overall usage rate was similar between the groups (IRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11). Subgroup analyses suggested no statistically significant differences in the odds of analgesic use. Significantly more athletes reported using analgesics to prevent or treat pain or injury in relation to sports participation and to use topical gels compared with student controls. CONCLUSION: Participating in youth elite sports was associated with lower odds of analgesic use compared to student controls, but usage rate was similar between the groups. Reasons for use and types of analgesics use differed between athletes and student controls.

Physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the occurrence of disorders of the shoulder: A systematic review update.

This review is an update of a previous systematic review and assesses the evidence for the association of work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors and specific disorders of the shoulders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched and study eligibility and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 14 new articles were added with the majority focusing on rotator cuff syndrome (RCS) with seven studies. Nine articles reported psychosocial exposures in addition to physical exposures. The strongest evidence was found for the association between elevation, repetition, force and vibration and the occurrence of SIS and tendinosis/tendonitis. Evidence also suggests that psychosocial exposures are associated with the occurrence of RCS and tendinosis/tendonitis. Other findings were inconsistent which prevents drawing strong conclusions.

Moderators of treatment effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with (sub) acute low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

A Cochrane review found that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are slightly more effective than placebo on acute and subacute low back pain (LBP) outcomes (pain intensity, disability, and global improvement). Our objectives are: (1) to assess the overall treatment effect of NSAIDs in adults with acute and subacute LBP; (2) to identify the moderation of baseline patients' characteristics on treatment effect. We will conduct a systematic search of RCTs on effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with placebo in adults with non-chronic LBP in Medline ALL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials*. We will screen the records after January 2020, and include eligible RCTs before January 2020 screened by the Cochrane review mentioned above. Our primary outcomes are pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life, secondary outcomes are adverse events. Our IPD dataset will consist of the information on each eligible trial characteristics and included variables according to a predefined coding scheme. We will assess risk-of-bias of included RCTs with the Cochrane Risk Of Bias (RoB)-2 assessment tool. We will perform power calculations with closed-form solutions and prioritize a one-stage approach for IPD-MA. For reporting the results, we will adhere to the PRISMA-IPD statement.

The prevalence, incidence and management of low back pain with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice: A population-based cohort study in the Rijnmond Primary Care Database.

BACKGROUND: Radiating leg pain is common in patients with low back pain (LBP). In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence and incidence of LBP with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice, and to describe the prescribed medications and requested imaging diagnostics. METHODS: The Rijnmond Primary Care Database containing over 500,000 primary care patients was used to select patients ≥18 years with LBP with radiating leg pain between 2013 and 2021. Data on patient characteristics, LBP episodes, prescribed medication and requested imaging in the first 3 months of an episode was extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present patient characteristics and diagnostic/therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: A total of 27,695 patients were included. The total number of LBP with radiating leg pain episodes in these patients was 36,268. In 2021, the incidence and prevalence were 19.1 and 25.7 per 1000 patient years, respectively. In 60% of patients, the episode duration was shorter than 1 month. In 62% of the episodes, patients visited the general practitioner (GP) one to two times. In 59% of the episodes, at least one medication was prescribed, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being the most common one (45%). In approximately 11% of the episodes, additional diagnostic imaging was requested. CONCLUSION: LBP with radiating leg pain is common in Dutch general practice patients. About 2/3rd were prescribed pain medications. Dutch request few to none diagnostic imaging for these patients which is in line with clinical practice guidelines. SIGNIFICANCE: In this new study, we have gained insights into the incidence and prevalence of LBP with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice. Both remained fairly stable over the study period of 9 years (2013-2021). Overall, the care burden regarding seeking contact with the GPs and the requested diagnostics seem not to be that high. In 62% of the care episodes, there were one or two consultations with the GP, and in 11% of the episodes a diagnostic imaging was requested. Pain medications frequently prescribed (i.e. 2/3rd of the episodes), with NSAIDs being the most common ones.

Does the intensity of pain and disability affect health-related quality of life of older adults with back pain? Multilevel analysis between Brazil and Netherlands: a cross-sectional study of the BACE consortium.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of back pain (BP) in the older adults is less favorable than in younger adults and progress to adverse outcomes and consequent worsening of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The present study aimed to verify the association between BP intensity, disability and HRQoL in older adults residents in Brazil and Netherlands, and to evaluate whether the country of residence influences the associations. METHODS: Data were collected from 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants with a new episode of BP from the Back Complaints in Elders (BACE) consortium. For the present study, a cross section was used. Pain intensity and disability were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), respectively. HRQoL was assessed using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire. Age, sex, and education were descriptive variables. Pain intensity (NPS score) and country were the independent variables and quality of life assessed by each SF domain - 36 was the dependent variable. Analysis of models at the individual level was performed to verify the association between pain and disability, also HRQoL in Netherlands and Brazil in the total sample. The multilevel model was used to verify whether the older adults person's country of residence influenced this relationship. RESULTS: The average age of the participants was 67.00 (7.33) years. In the total sample, linear regression analysis adjusted for sex and age showed a significant association between BP intensity scores and HRQoL, for all domains. There was no association between disability and HRQoL. In the multilevel analysis, there was an association between BP intensity and HRQoL in all domains and an association between the country of residence and HRQoL, influencing the effect of pain, in all domains, except for the physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic and cultural aspects of different countries can affect the perception of the elderly about their HRQoL in the presence of BP. Pain and disability in Brazilian and Dutch older adults ones are experienced differently in relation to their HRQoL.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) versus our main comparisons: 1) sham treatment, and 2) no treatment at short-term (main follow-up time). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (< 6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific aetiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status and recovery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 23 RCTs (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs. no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many RCTs had a high risk of bias, were small in size and/or there was substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? The low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium's international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations.

The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium's recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium's consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.

Prognostic Models for Chronic Low Back Pain Outcomes in Primary Care Are at High Risk of Bias and Lack Validation-High-Quality Studies Are Needed: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated overview of available prognostic models for people with chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care. DESIGN: Prognosis systematic review LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched for relevant studies on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases (up to July 13, 2022), and performed citation tracking in Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included observational (cohort or nested case-control) studies and randomized controlled trials that developed or validated prognostic models for adults with chronic LBP in primary care. The outcomes of interest were physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life at any follow-up time-point. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the models. Due to the number of studies retrieved and the heterogeneity, we reported the results descriptively. RESULTS: Ten studies (out of 5593 hits screened) with 34 models met our inclusion criteria, of which six are development studies and four are external validation studies. Five studies reported the area under the curve of the models (ranging from 0.48 to 0.84), whereas no study reported calibration indices. The most promising model is the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high risk of bias and lack of external validation, we cannot recommend that clinicians use prognostic models for patients with chronic LBP in primary care settings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(5):1-13. Epub 15 February 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12081.

Physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review of prospective studies.

This systematic review summarizes the evidence on associations between physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the development of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Relevant databases were searched up to January 2020 for cohort studies reporting associations between work-related physical or psychosocial risk factors and the incidence of CTS. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB). We identified fourteen articles for inclusion which reported data from nine cohort studies. Eight reported associations between physical exposure and the incidence of CTS and five reported associations between psychosocial exposures and the incidence of CTS. Quality items were generally rated as unclear or low RoB. Work-related physical exposure factors including high levels of repetition, velocity, and a combination of multiple physical exposures were associated with an increased risk of developing CTS. No other consistent associations were observed for physical or psychosocial exposures at work and CTS incidence.

Exploring the facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain treatment experienced by general practitioners: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend opioid deprescribing in patients on long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. This study aims to explore facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing among general practitioners in the Netherlands. In addition, this study aims to identify possibilities for improvement regarding opioid deprescribing in primary care. METHODS: Focus group discussions with Dutch General practitioners were held by two skilled moderators. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA software. Three independent reviewers searched for overarching themes using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Discussions were organized until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-two general practitioners participated in four focus group discussions. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) patient-centred care; (2) ensuring proper pain management (3) dilemmas and hardships in dealing with opioid use disorder; (4) the competency gap; (5) needs and possibilities to improve opioid deprescribing in primary care. The first theme addresses the main facilitators in opioid tapering. The following three themes emerged as main barriers in opioid deprescribing. The fifth theme identified possibilities for change. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the importance of intrinsic motivation and a tailored approach to deprescribe opioids in patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Identified barriers include struggles in pain management, challenges caused by opioid use disorder, insufficient capacities such as time constraints and lack of skills. Recommendations for improvement involve enhanced collaboration with healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, provision of practical tools and assurance of sufficient time. SIGNIFICANCE: This focus group study among 22 Dutch general practitioners elucidates the complexities of opioid deprescribing and reveals pivotal themes such as patient-centred care, pain management challenges, and competency gaps. The findings underscore the crucial role of intrinsic motivation and that of a tailored approach in opioid deprescribing, while demonstrating how a lack in effective pain treatments, practical capacities and challenges caused by opioid dependence, impede opioid deprescribing. By uncovering these complexities, this study aims to inform future deprescribing strategies.

Clinical improvements due to specific effects and placebo effects in conservative interventions and changes observed with no treatment in randomized controlled trials of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Little is known about the contribution of placebo effects and changes observed with no treatment in interventions for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). This systematic review assessed the proportions of the overall treatment effect that may be attributable to specific treatment effects, placebo effects, and changes observed with no treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with NSLBP. Trials published before 2019 were identified from a published systematic review, and the search was updated in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for trials published between January 2019 and March 2023. Three-arm RCTs comparing the effects of experimental interventions vs placebo control vs no intervention reporting pain intensity, physical function, and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were included. Sixteen RCTs with 1436 adults with chronic NSLBP testing conservative and mainly passive interventions were included. For pain intensity (16 studies), 33%, 18%, and 49% of the overall short-term treatment effect was attributable to specific treatment effects, placebo effects, and changes observed with no treatment, respectively. For physical function (11 studies) and HRQoL (6 studies), these proportions were 34%, 13%, and 53%, and 11%, 41%, and 48%, respectively. These results show that approximately half of the overall treatment effect of conservative and mainly passive interventions for patients with chronic NSLBP is attributable to changes observed with no treatment, rather than specific or placebo effects of treatments. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low, suggesting that the true effects might be markedly different from the effect sizes underlying these estimates.

Aerobic and Anaerobic Fitness Levels of Pre-Professional Contemporary Dancers: An Exploration of 2 Dance-Specific Field Tests.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to present descriptive heart rate (HR), heart rate recovery (HRR) and RPE data for the DAFT and HIDT within one sample of contemporary dance students. The second aim was to explore if objective (HR) and subjective (RPE) data were correlated between tests. METHOD: 40 (11 males, 29 females) university dance students with a mean age of 18.8 ± 1.8 years performed the DAFT and HIDT on 2 separate occasions within 1 week. Measurements were HR after 4 minutes in all stages of the DAFT, the percentage of age-predicted maximal HR (%HRmax) of all stages of the DAFT and at the end of the HIDT, and peak HR (HRpeak) at the end of both tests. Subjective ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and HR recovery after 1 minute of rest (HRR) were determined after the tests. RESULTS: HRpeak of the DAFT and HIDT were 188.1 ± 11.0 and 185.3 ± 7.3 beats·min-1, respectively. There were high positive correlations between HRpeak of the HIDT and stages 3 to 5 of the DAFT (r = 0.716-0.740, all P-values < .01). HRR (r = .678, P < .01) and %HRmax (r = .746, P < .01) showed moderate to high correlations between the DAFT and HIDT. The anaerobic training zone was reached in stages 4 and 5 of the DAFT and at the end of the HIDT. The subjective RPE scores did not significantly correlate between DAFT and HIDT, neither with objective HR data. CONCLUSION: Although the DAFT and HIDT differ in intensity and work-to-rest ratio, there were high correlations between HR and HRR data of both tests and both tests reached intensities above the anaerobic threshold (%HRmax > 85%).

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.

Prevalence and consequences of spinal pain among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Denmark.

PURPOSE: To describe 1-week and 1-year prevalence of spinal pain and its consequences in relation to leisure activity, work-life, and care-seeking in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey including adults diagnosed with DM from two Danish secondary care centres. Using the Standardised Nordic Questionnaire, spinal pain prevalence (cervical, thoracic, lumbar) and its consequences were evaluated (proportions, 95% confidence intervals) and compared to the general population. RESULTS: Among 3767 people, 1-week and 1-year spinal pain prevalence were 11.6-32.4 and 18.5-49.6%, respectively, highest for lumbar pain (24.6-49.6%). The prevalence was similar between DM types for cervical and thoracic pain, but higher in type 2 for lumbar spine. Women had higher pain prevalence across spinal regions and DM types, while cervical and thoracic pain estimates were higher for age < 60 vs. ≥ 60. Within the past year, > 50% reported pain > 30 days, high proportions had reduced their activities (leisure time, 43.7-63.9%; work, 20.7-33.3%), 13.3-28.1% reported sick-leave > 30 days, and 44.3-48.5% had sought care due to spinal pain. CONCLUSION: Spinal pain is common in people with type 1 and 2 DM, resulting in considerable consequences for work/leisure activities, sick-leave, and healthcare utilisation as compared to the general population.

To rest or to compete? A 4-week cohort study of analgesic use and willingness to compete hurt in Danish youth elite athletes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between analgesic use and willingness to compete hurt (WCH) in Danish youth elite athletes, and to explore factors associated with such willingness. DESIGN: 4-week prospective cohort study. METHODS: 592 Danish youth elite athletes (15-20 years) completed a baseline questionnaire assessing demographic information, sport history, and WCH, and provided weekly reports on analgesic use for 4 weeks via text messages. Analgesic use was categorized as no use (0 weeks) or use across 1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks, and as the total number of days with analgesic use. Multinomial logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analyses estimated the association between analgesic use and WCH. Linear backward stepwise regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with WCH. RESULTS: Overall, risk of analgesic use increased significantly with increasing WCH scores (relative risk ratios ranging from 1.06 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.12%) to 1.34% (95% CI 1.15 to 1.57)). The incidence rate of analgesic use increased significantly with increasing WCH scores (incidence rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.14)). Associations between the investigated possible antecedent factors and WCH were weak and not considered practically important (R2 = 0.05 or lower). CONCLUSIONS: Higher WCH scores were associated with increasing risk of analgesic use, irrespective of the underlying reason for the use, in Danish youth elite athletes, suggesting that analgesics may be an ingrained part of a sport-specific culture of risk acceptance. Future studies should include measures of culture, norms, and social interaction to better explain the variance in WCH.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

The effect of dual-task conditions on postural control in adults with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dual-task conditions, which involve performing two tasks simultaneously, may exacerbate pain and further impair daily functioning in individuals with low back pain (LBP). Understanding the effects of dual-task conditions on postural control in patients with LBP is crucial for the development of effective rehabilitation programs. Our objective was to investigate the impact of dual-task conditions on postural control in individuals with LBP compared to those without LBP. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases, with no language restrictions, from inception to January 1, 2023. The primary outcome measures of the study were velocity, area, amplitude, phase plane portrait, and path/sway length of the center of pressure (CoP). Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were calculated, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: From 196 studies, five involving 242 adults (≥ 18 years) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were rated as high quality, while two were deemed moderate. In the included studies, 140 participants had non-specific LBP, while 102 participants did not report any symptoms, with mean ages of 36.68 (± 14.21) and 36.35 (± 15.39) years, respectively. Three studies had both genders, one exclusively included females, and one did not specify gender. Meta-analyses of primary outcomes revealed no significant differences in postural control between patients with LBP and pain-free controls during both easy and difficult postural tasks and cognitive load for velocity (easy: SMD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.91 to 0.74; difficult: SMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.67 to 0.91), area (easy: SMD 0.82, 95% CI - 2.99 to 4.62; difficult: SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 2.62 to 2.89), phase plane (easy: SMD - 0.59, 95% CI - 1.19 to 0.02; difficult: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42), path/sway length (easy: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42; difficult: SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.84 to 0.55), and amplitude (easy: SMD 0.89, 95% CI - 1.62 to 3.39; difficult: SMD 1.31, 95% CI - 1.48 to 4.10). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences in postural control parameters during dual-task conditions between individuals with non-specific LBP and pain-free subjects. However, due to the limited number of available studies, significant publication bias, and considerable statistical heterogeneity, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Therefore, further research comprising high-quality studies with larger sample sizes is necessary to obtain conclusive results. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022359263.