DOSage of Exercise for chronic low back pain disorders (DOSE): protocol for a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis.

Chronic low back disorders are the leading cause of direct and indirect healthcare burden globally. Exercise training improves pain intensity, mental health and physical function. However, the optimal prescription variables are unknown. We aim to compare the efficacy of various exercise dosages for chronic low back disorders to identify the optimal prescription variables. Six databases (Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CENTRAL), trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and reference lists of prior systematic reviews will be searched, and we will conduct forward and backward citation tracking. We will include peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (individual, cluster or cross-over trials) published in English or German language comparing exercise training to other exercise training or non-exercise training interventions (conservative, non-surgical, non-pharmacological, non-invasive treatments, placebo, sham, usual/standard care, no-treatment control, waitlist control) in adults with chronic low back disorders. Outcomes will include pain intensity, disability, mental health, adverse events, adherence rate, dropout rate and work capacity. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool will be employed. The dose will be categorised as cumulative dose (total and weekly minutes of exercise training) and individual dose prescription variables (intervention duration, session duration, frequency and intensity). Dose-response model-based network meta-analysis will be used to assess the comparative efficacy of different exercise doses to determine a dose-response relationship. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Information about optimal exercise training dosage will help in enhancing treatment outcomes.

Boosting treatment outcomes via the patient-practitioner relationship, treatment-beliefs or therapeutic setting. A systematic review with meta-analysis of contextual effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (e.g. interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of non-pharmacological and non-surgicaltreatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in six databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. RESULTS: Of 17637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD] : -1.77, 95%-CI: [-8.71; 5.16], k = 7 trials, N = 719 participants, Scale: 0-100, GRADE: Low)) or physical functioning (MD: -0.27, 95%-CI: [-1.02; 0.49], 95%-PI: [-2.04; 1.51], k = 6 , N = 567, Scale: 0-10, GRADE: Low) in the short-term and at later follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. CONCLUSION: Whilst evidence gaps exist, per current evidence it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023391601).

The importance of context (placebo effects) in conservative interventions for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non-pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short-, medium- and/or long-term follow-up. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented. RESULTS: The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: -5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.20, -3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes. Meta-regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses. CONCLUSION: The study found that the contextual effect of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component. SIGNIFICANCE: Contextual effects of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference.

Telemedicine for Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain Lacks High-Quality Evidence on Delivery Modes and Effectiveness: An Umbrella Review.

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Telemedicine is of growing importance, yet impacts on treatment efficacy remain unclear. Objective: This umbrella review (CRD42022298047) examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity, disability, psychological function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and adverse events in MSK pain. Methods: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to August 9, 2022, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, including telemedicine-delivered exercise, education, and psychological interventions, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). AMSTAR-2 was implemented. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; negative favors telemedicine) were extracted as effect estimates. Results: Of 1,135 records, 20 reviews (RCTs: n = 97, participants: n = 15,872) were included. Pain intensity SMDs were -0.66 to 0.10 for mixed pain (estimates: n = 16), -0.64 to -0.01 for low-back pain (n = 9), -0.31 to -0.15 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.29 for knee pain (n = 1), -0.66 to -0.58 for fibromyalgia (n = 2), -0.16 for back pain (n = 1), and -0.09 for rheumatic disorders (n = 1). Disability SMDs were -0.50 to 0.10 for mixed pain (n = 14), -0.39 to 0.00 for low-back pain (n = 8), -0.41 to -0.04 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.22 for knee pain (n = 1), and -0.56 for fibromyalgia (n = 1). Methodological quality was "critically low" for 17 reviews. Effectiveness tended to favor telemedicine for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Primary RCTs are required that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of the intervention (noninferiority trials), consider safety, assess videoconferencing, and combine different treatment approaches.

Evidence- and data-driven classification of low back pain via artificial intelligence: Protocol of the PREDICT-LBP study.

In patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), once specific causes are excluded (fracture, infection, inflammatory arthritis, cancer, cauda equina and radiculopathy) many clinicians pose a diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Accordingly, current management of non-specific LBP is generic. There is a need for a classification of non-specific LBP that is both data- and evidence-based assessing multi-dimensional pain-related factors in a large sample size. The "PRedictive Evidence Driven Intelligent Classification Tool for Low Back Pain" (PREDICT-LBP) project is a prospective cross-sectional study which will compare 300 women and men with non-specific LBP (aged 18-55 years) with 100 matched referents without a history of LBP. Participants will be recruited from the general public and local medical facilities. Data will be collected on spinal tissue (intervertebral disc composition and morphology, vertebral fat fraction and paraspinal muscle size and composition via magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), central nervous system adaptation (pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, brain resting state functional connectivity, structural connectivity and regional volumes via MRI), psychosocial factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) and other musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Dimensionality reduction, cluster validation and fuzzy c-means clustering methods, classification models, and relevant sensitivity analyses, will classify non-specific LBP patients into sub-groups. This project represents a first personalised diagnostic approach to non-specific LBP, with potential for widespread uptake in clinical practice. This project will provide evidence to support clinical trials assessing specific treatments approaches for potential subgroups of patients with non-specific LBP. The classification tool may lead to better patient outcomes and reduction in economic costs.

Cervical spine and muscle adaptation after spaceflight and relationship to herniation risk: protocol from 'Cervical in Space' trial.

BACKGROUND: Astronauts have a higher risk of cervical intervertebral disc herniation. Several mechanisms have been attributed as causative factors for this increased risk. However, most of the previous studies have examined potential causal factors for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation only. Hence, we aim to conduct a study to identify the various changes in the cervical spine that lead to an increased risk of cervical disc herniation after spaceflight. METHODS: A cohort study with astronauts will be conducted. The data collection will involve four main components: a) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); b) cervical 3D kinematics; c) an Integrated Protocol consisting of maximal and submaximal voluntary contractions of the neck muscles, endurance testing of the neck muscles, neck muscle fatigue testing and questionnaires; and d) dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) examination. Measurements will be conducted at several time points before and after astronauts visit the International Space Station. The main outcomes of interest are adaptations in the cervical discs, muscles and bones. DISCUSSION: Astronauts are at higher risk of cervical disc herniation, but contributing factors remain unclear. The results of this study will inform future preventive measures for astronauts and will also contribute to the understanding of intervertebral disc herniation risk in the cervical spine for people on Earth. In addition, we anticipate deeper insight into the aetiology of neck pain with this research project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00026777. Registered on 08 October 2021.