Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults.

PURPOSE: To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education or Advice for Chronic Primary low back pain in Adults.

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Education/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty.

Multivariable prediction models for the recovery of and claim closure related to post-collision neck pain and associated disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Few clinical prediction models are available to clinicians to predict the recovery of patients with post-collision neck pain and associated disorders. We aimed to develop evidence-based clinical prediction models to predict (1) self-reported recovery and (2) insurance claim closure from neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. METHODS: The selection of potential predictors was informed by a systematic review of the literature. We used Cox regression to build models in an incident cohort of Saskatchewan adults (n = 4923). The models were internally validated using bootstrapping and replicated in participants from a randomized controlled trial conducted in Ontario (n = 340). We used C-statistics to describe predictive ability. RESULTS: Participants from both cohorts (Saskatchewan and Ontario) were similar at baseline. Our prediction model for self-reported recovery included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity and headache intensity (C = 0.643; 95% CI 0.634-0.653). The prediction model for claim closure included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity, headache intensity and depressive symptoms (C = 0.637; 95% CI 0.629-0.648). CONCLUSIONS: We developed prediction models for the recovery and claim closure of NAD caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. Future research needs to focus on improving the predictive ability of the models.

Inter-rater reliability of the Quebec Task Force classification system for recent-onset Whiplash Associated Disorders.

PURPOSE: The inter-rater reliability of the Quebec Task Force (QTF) classification system for Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) remains unknown. Our objective was to determine the inter-rater reliability of the WAD classification between an experienced chiropractic clinician and two chiropractic residents. METHODS: We conducted an inter-rater reliability study using baseline clinical data from 80 participants assessed for inclusion in a randomized clinical trial of the conservative management of WAD grades I and II. We reported reliability using Cohen's kappa (k) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean duration of WAD symptoms was 7.6 days (s.d.=5.2). In our study, the interrater reliability of the WAD grade classification varied from k=0.04 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.12) to k=0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.94). CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of the WAD classification varied greatly across raters and may be associated with the experience of the raters and with their understanding of the criteria. Our results suggest that clinicians may benefit from training to standardize how they classify WAD. Furthermore, our results need to be tested in a different sample of patients and with a range of clinicians from different clinical disciplines.

OBJECTIF: La fiabilité inter-utilisateur du système de classification des troubles associés au coup de fouet cervical (TACF) établi par le Groupe de travail du Québec (GTQ) demeure inconnue. Notre étude visait à établir la fiabilité inter-évaluateur du système de classification des troubles associés au TACF utilisé par un chiropraticien clinicien d'expérience et deux résidents en chiropratique. MÉTHODOLOGIE: On a effectué notre étude à l'aide de données cliniques de départ sur 80 participants à un essai clinique, à répartition aléatoire, sur le traitement conservateur du TACF de stades I et II. On a utilisé le coefficient kappa (k) de Cohen et des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 % pour évaluer la fiabilité. RÉSULTATS: La durée moyenne des symptômes du TACF était de 7,6 jours (écart-type :5,2). La fiabilité inter-utilisateur de la classification des TACF a varié de k = 0,04 (IC à 95 % ­ de 0,04 à 0,12) à k = 0,80 (IC à 95 % de 0,67 à 0,94). CONCLUSION: La fiabilité inter-utilisateur de la classification des TACF a beaucoup varié d'un évaluateur à l'autre; l'écart pourrait être lié à l'expérience de l'évaluateur et à sa compréhension des critères de classification. Selon les résultats de notre étude, les cliniciens pourraient bénéficier d'une formation servant à normaliser leur méthode de classification des TACF. Nos résultats devraient être confirmés par une autre étude utilisant un autre échantillon de patients et un éventail de cliniciens appartenant à diverses disciplines.

Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology. METHODS: This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE: Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). METHODS: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. SIGNIFICANCE: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. RESULTS: The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00546806.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Other Conservative Treatments for Low Back Pain: A Guideline From the Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) in adults. The aim was to develop a guideline to provide best practice recommendations on the initial assessment and monitoring of people with low back pain and address the use of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) compared with other commonly used conservative treatments. METHODS: The topic areas were chosen based on an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality comparative effectiveness review, specific to spinal manipulation as a nonpharmacological intervention. The panel updated the search strategies in Medline. We assessed admissible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for each question using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. Using the Evidence to Decision Framework, the guideline panel determined the certainty of evidence and strength of the recommendations. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi technique. The guideline was peer reviewed by an 8-member multidisciplinary external committee. RESULTS: For patients with acute (0-3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice (posture, staying active), reassurance, education and self-management strategies in addition to SMT, usual medical care when deemed beneficial, or a combination of SMT and usual medical care to improve pain and disability. For patients with chronic (>3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice and education, SMT or SMT as part of a multimodal therapy (exercise, myofascial therapy or usual medical care when deemed beneficial). For patients with chronic back-related leg pain, we suggest offering advice and education along with SMT and home exercise (positioning and stabilization exercises). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal approach including SMT, other commonly used active interventions, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for acute and chronic back pain, with or without leg pain.

Criteria to Screen for Traumatic Cervical Spine Instability: A Consensus of Chiropractic Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus on a radiographic definition for cervical instability for routine use in chiropractic patients who sustain trauma to the cervical spine. METHOD: We conducted a modified Delphi study with a panel of chiropractic radiologists. Panelists were asked to rate potential screening criteria for traumatic cervical spine instability when assessing cervical spine radiographs. Items rated as important for inclusion by at least 60% of participants in round 1 were submitted for a second round of voting in round 2. Items rated for inclusion by at least 75% of the participants in round 2 were used to create the consensus-based list of screening criteria. Participants were asked to vote and reach agreement on the final screening criteria list in round 3. RESULTS: Twenty-nine chiropractic radiologists participated in round 1. After 3 rounds of survey, 85% of participants approved the final consensus-based list of criteria for traumatic cervical spine instability screening, including 6 clinical signs and symptoms and 5 radiographic criteria. Participants agreed that the presence of 1 or more of these clinical signs and symptoms and/or 1 or more of the 5 radiographic criteria on routine static radiographic studies suggests cervical instability. CONCLUSION: The consensus-based radiographic definition of traumatic cervical spine instability includes 6 clinical signs and symptoms and 5 radiographic criteria that doctors of chiropractic should apply to their patients who sustain trauma to the cervical spine.

Are Passive Physical Modalities Effective for the Management of Common Soft Tissue Injuries of the Elbow?: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of soft tissue injuries of the elbow. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We included studies with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We screened 6618 articles; 21 were eligible for critical appraisal and 9 (reporting on 8 randomized controlled trials) had a low risk of bias. All randomized controlled trials with a low risk of bias focused on lateral epicondylitis. We found that adding transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to primary care does not improve the outcome of patients with lateral epicondylitis. We found inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of: (1) an elbow brace for managing lateral epicondylitis of variable duration; and (2) shockwave therapy or low-level laser therapy for persistent lateral epicondylitis. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation provides no added benefit to patients with lateral epicondylitis. The effectiveness of an elbow brace, shockwave therapy, or low-level laser therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis is inconclusive. We found little evidence to inform the use of passive physical modalities for the management of elbow soft tissue injuries.

The Treatment of Neck Pain-Associated Disorders and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of neck pain-associated disorders (NADs) and whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). This guideline replaces 2 prior chiropractic guidelines on NADs and WADs. METHODS: Pertinent systematic reviews on 6 topic areas (education, multimodal care, exercise, work disability, manual therapy, passive modalities) were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and data extracted from admissible randomized controlled trials. We incorporated risk of bias scores in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality, detail relative and absolute effects, and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi. The guideline was peer reviewed by a 10-member multidisciplinary (medical and chiropractic) external committee. RESULTS: For recent-onset (0-3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care; manipulation or mobilization; range-of-motion home exercise, or multimodal manual therapy (for grades I-II NAD); supervised graded strengthening exercise (grade III NAD); and multimodal care (grade III WAD). For persistent (>3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care or stress self-management; manipulation with soft tissue therapy; high-dose massage; supervised group exercise; supervised yoga; supervised strengthening exercises or home exercises (grades I-II NAD); multimodal care or practitioner's advice (grades I-III NAD); and supervised exercise with advice or advice alone (grades I-II WAD). For workers with persistent neck and shoulder pain, evidence supports mixed supervised and unsupervised high-intensity strength training or advice alone (grades I-III NAD). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal approach including manual therapy, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for both recent-onset and persistent neck pain.

Multimodal care for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand are associated with pain, functional impairment and decreased productivity in the general population. Combining several interventions in a multimodal program of care is reflective of current clinical practice; however there is limited evidence to support its effectiveness. The purpose of our review was to investigate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand on self-rated recovery, functional recovery, or clinical outcomes in adults or children. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to March 2015. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 5989 articles, and critically appraised eleven articles. Of those, seven had a low risk of bias; one addressed carpal tunnel syndrome and six addressed lateral epicondylitis. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of other musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist or hand. The evidence suggests that multimodal care for the management of lateral epicondylitis may include education, exercise (strengthening, stretching, occupational exercise), manual therapy (manipulation) and soft tissue therapy (massage). The evidence does not support the use of multimodal care for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the effectiveness of multimodal care for musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand is limited. The available evidence suggests that there may be a role for multimodal care in the management of patients with persistent lateral epicondylitis. Future research is needed to examine the effectiveness of multimodal care and guide clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009093.

Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). METHODS: This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD <6 months duration. RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. RECOMMENDATION 4: For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. RECOMMENDATION 5: For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. RECOMMENDATION 6: For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

The Effectiveness of Multimodal Care for Soft Tissue Injuries of the Lower Extremity: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of soft tissue injuries of the lower extremity. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We included studies with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We screened 6794 articles. Six studies had a low risk of bias and addressed the following: plantar heel pain (n = 2), adductor-related groin pain (n = 1), and patellofemoral pain (n = 3). The evidence suggests that multimodal care for the management of persistent plantar heel pain may include mobilization and stretching exercise. An intensive, clinic-based, group exercise program (strengthening, stretching, balance, agility) is more effective than multimodal care for the management of adductor-related groin pain in male athletes. There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of multimodal care for the management of persistent patellofemoral pain. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining multimodal care for the management of other soft tissue injuries of the lower extremity. CONCLUSION: A multimodal program of care for the management of persistent plantar heel pain may include mobilization and stretching exercise. Multimodal care for adductor-related groin pain is not recommended based on the current evidence. There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of multimodal care for the management of persistent patellofemoral pain.

The Effectiveness of Exercise on Recovery and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Soft Tissue Injuries of the Hip, Thigh, or Knee: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of exercise for the management of soft tissue injuries of the hip, thigh, and knee. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text from January 1, 1990, to April 8, 2015, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating the effect of exercise on pain intensity, self-rated recovery, functional recovery, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, and adverse events. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and assessed risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Best evidence synthesis methodology was used. RESULTS: We screened 9494 citations. Eight RCTs were critically appraised, and 3 had low risk of bias and were included in our synthesis. One RCT found statistically significant improvements in pain and function favoring clinic-based progressive combined exercises over a "wait and see" approach for patellofemoral pain syndrome. A second RCT suggests that supervised closed kinetic chain exercises may lead to greater symptom improvement than open chain exercises for patellofemoral pain syndrome. One RCT suggests that clinic-based group exercises may be more effective than multimodal physiotherapy in male athletes with persistent groin pain. CONCLUSION: We found limited high-quality evidence to support the use of exercise for the management of soft tissue injuries of the lower extremity. The evidence suggests that clinic-based exercise programs may benefit patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome and persistent groin pain. Further high-quality research is needed.

The Effectiveness of Multimodal Care for the Management of Soft Tissue Injuries of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of soft tissue injuries of the shoulder. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Two independent reviewers critically appraised studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We used best evidence synthesis to synthesize evidence from studies with low risk of bias. RESULTS: We screened 5885 articles, and 19 were eligible for critical appraisal. Ten randomized controlled trials had low risk of bias. For persistent subacromial impingement syndrome, multimodal care leads to similar outcomes as sham therapy, radial extracorporeal shock-wave therapy, or surgery. For subacromial impingement syndrome, multimodal care may be associated with small and nonclinically important improvement in pain and function compared with corticosteroid injections. For rotator cuff tendinitis, dietary-based multimodal care may be more effective than conventional multimodal care (exercise, soft tissue and manual therapy, and placebo tablets). For nonspecific shoulder pain, multimodal care may be more effective than wait list or usual care by a general practitioner, but it leads to similar outcomes as exercise or corticosteroid injections. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that combining multiple interventions into 1 program of care does not lead to superior outcomes for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome or nonspecific shoulder pain. One randomized controlled trial suggested that dietary-based multimodal care (dietary advice, acupuncture, and enzyme tablets) may provide better outcomes over conventional multimodal care. However, these results need to be replicated.