Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the use of telemedicine for musculoskeletal conditions have been published in recent years. However, the landscape of evidence on multiple clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the available evidence from SRs on telemedicine for musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of SRs with and without meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2022, for SRs of randomized controlled trials assessing telemedicine. We collected any kind of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and objective measures, including direct and indirect costs. We assessed the methodological quality with the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). Findings were reported qualitatively. RESULTS: Overall, 35 SRs published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Most reviews (n=24, 69%) were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. The majority of reviews assessed "telerehabilitation" (n=29) in patients with osteoarthritis (n=13) using PROMs (n=142 outcomes mapped with n=60 meta-analyses). A substantive body of evidence from meta-analyses found telemedicine to be beneficial or equal in terms of PROMs compared to conventional care (n=57 meta-analyses). Meta-analyses showed no differences between groups in PREMs (n=4), while objectives measures (ie, "physical function") were mainly in favor of telemedicine or showed no difference (9/13). All SRs showed notably lower costs for telemedicine compared to in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine can provide more accessible health care with noninferior results for various clinical outcomes in comparison with conventional care. The assessment of telemedicine is largely represented by PROMs, with some gaps for PREMs, objective measures, and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022347366; https://osf.io/pxedm/.

Olympic Weightlifting Training for Sprint Performance in Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether Olympic weightlifting (OW) exercises would improve sprint performance when compared to a control intervention, (no training, standard sport-specific training, traditional resistance training, or plyometric training). Medline, Web of Science, SportDiscus, CINAHL, and Biological Science from inception to September 2022 was searched. Two authors independently selected the included studies, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The primary meta-analysis combined the results of the sprint performance over the full length of each sprint test. The secondary meta-analyses combined the results of the sprint performance at 5, 10, and 20 m distance to capture information about the acceleration phase of the sprint tests. Eight studies with 206 athletes (female n=10, age range: 18.9-24.2 years) were identified. Sprint performance did not differ significantly comparing OW to the control intervention, nor at the full length (standardized mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.47 to 0.34, p=0.75, I2=46%) or during the acceleration phase (p≥0.26) of the sprint test. OW training does not improve sprint performance to a greater extent than comparator interventions.

Comparative accuracy of ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in the Italian entrance test for healthcare sciences degrees: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are emerging educational tools for students in healthcare science. However, assessing their accuracy is essential prior to adoption in educational settings. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of predicting the correct answers from three AI chatbots (ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini) in the Italian entrance standardized examination test of healthcare science degrees (CINECA test). Secondarily, we assessed the narrative coherence of the AI chatbots' responses (i.e., text output) based on three qualitative metrics: the logical rationale behind the chosen answer, the presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional design was performed in September of 2023. Accuracy of the three chatbots was evaluated for the CINECA test, where questions were formatted using a multiple-choice structure with a single best answer. The outcome is binary (correct or incorrect). Chi-squared test and a post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction assessed differences among chatbots performance in accuracy. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A sensitivity analysis was performed, excluding answers that were not applicable (e.g., images). Narrative coherence was analyzed by absolute and relative frequencies of correct answers and errors. RESULTS: Overall, of the 820 CINECA multiple-choice questions inputted into all chatbots, 20 questions were not imported in ChatGPT-4 (n = 808) and Google Gemini (n = 808) due to technical limitations. We found statistically significant differences in the ChatGPT-4 vs Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot vs Google Gemini comparisons (p-value < 0.001). The narrative coherence of AI chatbots revealed "Logical reasoning" as the prevalent correct answer (n = 622, 81.5%) and "Logical error" as the prevalent incorrect answer (n = 40, 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our main findings reveal that: (A) AI chatbots performed well; (B) ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot performed better than Google Gemini; and (C) their narrative coherence is primarily logical. Although AI chatbots showed promising accuracy in predicting the correct answer in the Italian entrance university standardized examination test, we encourage candidates to cautiously incorporate this new technology to supplement their learning rather than a primary resource. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not required.

Shear-wave elastography for the evaluation of tendinopathies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare pathologic and healthy tendons using shear-wave elastography (SWE). METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was done searching Pubmed and EMBASE up to September 2022. Prospective, retrospective and cross-sectional studies that used SWE in the assessment of pathologic tendons versus control were included. Our primary outcome were SWE velocity (m/s) and stiffness (kPa). Methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). We used the mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify effects between groups. We performed sensitivity analysis in case of high heterogeneity, after excluding poor quality studies according to MINORS assessment. We used Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to evaluate the certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 676 pathologic tendons (188 Achilles, 142 patellar, 96 supraspinatus, 250 mixed) and 723 control tendons (484 healthy; 239 contralateral tendon) were included. Five studies (31.3%) were judged as poor methodological quality. Shear-wave velocity and stiffness meta-analyses showed high heterogeneity. According to a sensitivity analysis, pathologic tendons had a lower shear wave velocity (MD of - 1.69 m/s; 95% CI 1.85; - 1.52; n = 274; I2 50%) compared to healthy tendons with very low CoE. Sensitivity analysis on stiffness still showed high heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Pathological tendons may have reduced SWE velocity compared to controls, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future robust high-quality longitudinal studies and clear technical indications on the use of this tool are needed. PROTOCOL: PROSPERO identifier: CRD42023405410 CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: SWE is a relatively recent modality that may increase sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of conventional ultrasound imaging promoting early detection of tendinopathy. Non-negligible heterogeneity has been observed in included studies, so our findings may encourage the conduct of future high-quality longitudinal studies which can provide clear technical indications on the use of this promising tool in tendon imaging.

Does femoroacetabular impingement syndrome affect range of motion? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) affect hip range of motion (ROM). SOURCES OF DATA: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis searching six electronic databases from inception to March 21, 2022. We included studies assessing hip ROM in FAIS, FAI morphology without symptoms (FAIm), and healthy controls. Mean differences between groups were measured in ROM degrees with 95% confidence interval (CI). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: A total of 17 studies (1702 hips) were included. Comparison of FAIS patients versus healthy controls showed that hip ROM was clinically and statistically reduced in FAIS for internal rotation (90° hip flexion, -8.01°, 95% CI: -11.21, -4.90; 0° hip flexion -6.38°, 95% CI: -9.79, -2.97); adduction (90° hip flexion, -4.74°, 95% CI: -8.13, -1.34); flexion (-5.41°, 95% CI: -7.05, -3.49), abduction (0° hip flexion, -5.76°, 95% CI: -8.38, -3.23), and external rotation (90° hip flexion, -3.5°, 95% CI: -5.32, -1.67) ranging from low to high certainty of evidence. Comparison of FAIm versus healthy controls showed no statistically significant differences in any direction of movement, albeit with uncertainty of evidence. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The certainty of evidence was unclear, particularly for asymptomatic FAIm. GROWING POINTS: Hip ROM may be reduced in all directions except extension in FAIS compared to controls. Hip ROM may not be restricted in asymptomatic FAIm. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Further studies are needed to resolve the uncertainty of evidence about ROM restrictions in asymptomatic FAIm compared to healthy controls.

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are the best evidence for informing on intervention effectiveness. Their results, however, can be biased due to omitted evidence in the quantitative analyses. We aimed to assess the proportion of randomized controlled trials omitted from meta-analyses in the rehabilitation field and explore related reasons. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. For each systematic review included in a published selected sample in the rehabilitation field, we identified an index meta-analysis on the primary outcome and the main comparison. We then looked at all the studies considered eligible for the chosen comparison in the systematic review and identified those trials that have been omitted (i.e., not included) from each index meta-analysis. Reasons for omission were collected based on an eight-reason classification. We used descriptive statistics to describe the proportion of omitted trials overall and according to each reason. RESULTS: Starting from a cohort of 827 systematic reviews, 131 index meta-analyses comprising a total of 1761 eligible trials were selected. Only 16 index meta-analyses included all eligible studies while 15 omitted studies without providing references. From the remaining 100 index meta-analyses, 717 trials (40,7%) were omitted overall. Specific reasons for omission were: "unable to distinguish between selective reporting and inadequate planning" (39,3%, N = 282), "inadequate planning" (17%, N = 122), "justified to be not included" (15,1%, N = 108), "incomplete reporting" (8,4%, N = 60), "selective reporting" (3,3%, N = 24) and other situations (e.g., outcome present but no motivation for omission) (5,2%, N = 37). The 11,7% (N = 84) of omitted trials were not assessed due to non-English language or full text not available. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the eligible trials were omitted from their index meta-analyses. Better reporting, protocol registration, definition and adoption of core outcome sets are needed to prevent omission of evidence in systematic reviews.

One-Third of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation Applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) System to Evaluate Certainty of Evidence: A Meta-Research Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many systematic reviews (SRs) of the literature in rehabilitation assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) and how many apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to do this. DATA SOURCES: For this meta-research study, we searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs on rehabilitation published in 2020. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently selected the SRs and extracted the data. Reporting characteristics and appropriate use of the GRADE system were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 827 records: 29% (239/827) SRs evaluated CoE, 68% (163/239) of which applied the GRADE system. GRADE was used by SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 88%; 144/163), non-randomized intervention studies (NRIS, 2%; 3/163), and both RCT and NRIS (10%; 16/163). In the latter case, a separate GRADE assessment according to the study design was not provided in 75% (12/16). The reasons for GRADE judgment were reported in 82% (134/163) of SRs. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of SRs in rehabilitation assessed CoE with the GRADE system. GRADE assessment was presented transparently by most SRs. Journal editors and funders should encourage the uptake of the GRADE system when considering SRs in rehabilitation for publication. The authors should pre-define GRADE assessment in a registered and/or published protocol.

More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals. METHODS: For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7). CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/.

The International Guideline Evaluation Screening Tool (IGEST): development and validation.

BACKGROUND: Guideline adaptation provides an important alternative to de novo guideline development by making the process more efficient and reducing unnecessary duplication. The quality evaluation of international guidelines is an essential part of the adaptation process. The study aims at describing the development and validation of a new tool to screen trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for their adoption/adaption: the International Guideline Evaluation Screening Tool (IGEST). METHODS: The process of developing the IGEST involved two main phases: 1) tool development and 2) content validation. The tool development phase comprised three stages, where the scope of the IGEST was defined and the item pool was generated and refined. The content validation was performed through the computation of a content validity index (CVI) based on the opinions of an expert panel. RESULTS: All the items obtained a CVI >0.78, which resulted in the validation of the instrument. The final instrument comprised four preliminary conditions and 12 criteria organised into three dimensions: (i) the management of conflict of interest; (ii) the quality of evidence and the coherence between evidence and recommendations; and (iii) the panel composition. CONCLUSION: The IGEST showed good content validity for assessing the quality of international guidelines. Using the new tool to select trustworthy guidelines might increase the likelihood that international clinical practice guidelines will be adopted/adapted to the local context by allowing a quick screening of existing guidelines trustworthiness and providing an acceptability threshold that supports the decision-making process.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.41 to -0.40), heat wrap (SMD -1.38; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.17), opioids (SMD -0.86; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10), manual therapy (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.40 to -0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms. CONCLUSION: With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm-benefit balance.

Global health workforce research: Comparative analyses of the scientific publication trends in PubMed.

AIM: To analyse the amount of Human Resources for Health (HRH) research publication trends [1990-2019], compared to the broader health policy, systems, and services research (HPSSR). METHODS: PubMed and its indexation system with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used for this time-trend study. Searches combine MeSH terms for research publications and HPSSR or HRH subjects, except education. Sub-group searches are conducted on: funding support, and high- versus low- and middle-income countries (HICs vs. LMICs). Linear regressions are used for the analysis. RESULTS: HRH research publications rose exponentially (r2  = 0.94; p < 0.001) from 129 yearly publications in 1990, to 867 in 2018. Yet, HRH research publications had a logarithmic decrease (p < 0.001) in percentage of broader HPSSR publications, from 2.5% to 1.5% [1990-2018]. Funding support increased significantly and linearly (p < 0.001 r2  = 0.88), up to 44% in 2018. The percentage of HRH research publications addressing LMICs grew linearly (p < 0.001; r2  = 0.75), up to 23% in 2018. CONCLUSION: HRH research publications in the PubMed database increased especially in the more recent years but did not outpace (in earlier times was outpaced) by the growth of HPSSR publications overall. Yearly, HICs still accounted for more than three-quarters of HRH research. These findings can inform global and health research policies.

Is debridement really the best we can do for periprosthetic joint infections following total ankle replacements? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ankle periprosthetic joint infections are rising in number, but an evidence-based gold standard treatment has not been defined yet. METHODS: We made a systematic review about the operative treatment of infections following total ankle arthroplasty. Proportional meta-analysis was used to summarize effects of the surgical techniques included. Primary outcome of this study was infection eradication, followed by complications, re-interventions, amputation rates and functions. RESULTS: We included six studies(113 patients) reporting 6 types of surgical interventions, mostly irrigation and debridement (35.4%) and two-stage revisions (24.8%). No differences among all analyzed techniques were found in the infection eradication outcome as well as in the secondary outcomes. Patients receiving a permanent spacer are most likely to end up with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Literature dealing with infections after total ankle replacement is currently composed by few low-quality articles. The overlapping of confidence intervals related to all analyzed interventions showed no superiority of either technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Kinesio Taping (KT) is one of the conservative treatments proposed for rotator cuff disease. KT is an elastic, adhesive, latex-free taping made from cotton, without active pharmacological agents. Clinicians have adopted it in the rehabilitation treatment of painful conditions, however, there is no firm evidence on its benefits. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of KT in adults with rotator cuff disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry to July 27 2020, unrestricted by date and language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with rotator cuff disease. Major outcomes were overall pain, function, pain on motion, active range of motion, global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials with 1054 participants. Nine studies (312 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus sham therapy and fourteen studies (742 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus conservative treatment. Most participants were aged between 18 and 50 years. Females comprised 52% of the sample. For the meta-analysis, we considered the last available measurement within 30 days from the end of the intervention. All trials were at risk of performance, selection, reporting, attrition, and other biases.  Comparison with sham taping Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with sham taping. Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 2.96 points with sham taping and 3.03 points with KT (3 RCTs,106 participants), with an absolute difference of 0.7% worse, (95% CI 7.7% better to 9% worse) and a relative difference of 2% worse (95% CI 21% better to 24% worse) at four weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 47.1 points with sham taping and 39.05 points with KT (6 RCTs, 214 participants), with an absolute improvement of 8% (95% CI 21% better to 5% worse)and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 40% better to 9% worse) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.39 points with sham taping and 2.91 points with KT even though not clinically important (4 RCTs, 153 participants), with an absolute improvement of 14.8% (95% CI 22.5% better to 7.1% better) and a relative improvement of 30% (95% CI 45% better to 14% better) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 174.2 degrees with sham taping and 184.43 degrees with KT (2 RCTs, 68 participants), with an absolute improvement of 5.7% (95% CI 8.9% worse to 20.3% better) and a relative improvement of 6% (95% CI 10% worse to 22% better) at two weeks. No studies reported global assessment of treatment success. Quality of life was reported by one study but data were disaggregated in subscales. No reliable estimates for adverse events (4 studies; very low-certainty) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the sample. Comparison with conservative treatments Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain if KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with conservative treatments. However, KT may improve quality of life (low certainty of evidence).  Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 0.9 points with conservative treatment and 0.46 points with KT (5 RCTs, 266 participants), with an absolute improvement of 4.4% (95% CI 13% better to 4.6% worse) and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 46% better to 16% worse) at six weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 46.6 points with conservative treatment and 33.47 points with KT (14 RCTs, 499 participants), with an absolute improvement of 13% (95% CI 24% better to 2% better) and a relative improvement of 18% (95% CI 32% better to 3% better) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4 points with conservative treatment and 3.94 points with KT (6 RCTs, 225 participants), with an absolute improvement of 0.6% (95% CI 7% better to 8% worse) and a relative improvement of 1% (95% CI 12% better to 10% worse) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 156.6 degrees with conservative treatment and 159.64 degrees with KT (3 RCTs, 143 participants), with an absolute improvement of 3% (95% CI 11% worse to 17 % better) and a relative improvement of 3% (95% CI 9% worse to 14% better) at six weeks.  Mean of quality of life (0 to 100, 100 better quality of life) was 37.94 points with conservative treatment and 56.64 points with KT (1 RCTs, 30 participants), with an absolute improvement of 18.7% (95% CI 14.48% better to 22.92% better) and a relative improvement of 53% (95% CI 41% better to 65% better) at four weeks.  No studies were found for global assessment of treatment success. No reliable estimates for adverse events (7 studies, very low certainty of evidence) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the whole sample. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease has uncertain effects in terms of self-reported pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion when compared to sham taping or other conservative treatments as the certainty of evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence shows that kinesio taping may improve quality of life when compared to conservative treatment. We downgraded the evidence for indirectness due to differences among co-interventions, imprecision due to small number of participants across trials as well as selection bias, performance and detection bias. Evidence on adverse events was scarce and uncertain. Based upon the data in this review, the evidence for the efficacy of KT seems to demonstrate little or no benefit.

The efficacy of balneotherapy, mud therapy and spa therapy in patients with osteoarthritis: an overview of reviews.

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease considered a leading cause of functional disability. Its treatment is based on a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, but the role of these latter is still debated. This overview of systematic reviews aimed at evaluating the short-term efficacy of different thermal modalities in patients with osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, Web of Science, ProQuest and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until October 2020, with no language restrictions. We selected the following outcomes a priori: pain, stiffness and quality of life. Seventeen systematic reviews containing 27 unique relevant studies were included. The quality of the reviews ranged from low to critically low. Substantial variations in terms of interventions studied, comparison groups, population, outcomes and follow-up between the included SRs were found. From a re-analysis of primary data, emerged that balneotherapy was effective in reducing pain and improving stiffness and quality of life, mud therapy significantly reduced pain and stiffness, and spa therapy showed pain relief. However, the evidence supporting the efficacy of different thermal modalities could be seriously flawed due to methodological quality and sample size, to the presence of important treatment variations, and to the high level of heterogeneity and the absence of a double-blind design. There is some encouraging evidence that deserves clinicians' consideration, suggesting that thermal modalities are effective on a short-term basis for treating patients with AO.

Online teaching in physiotherapy education during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a retrospective case-control study on students' satisfaction and performance.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, physiotherapy lecturers faced the challenge of rapidly shifting from face-to-face to online education. This retrospective case-control study aims to compare students' satisfaction and performances shown in an online course to a control group of students who underwent the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years. METHODS: Between March and April 2020, a class (n = 46) of entry-level physiotherapy students (University of Verona - Italy), trained by an experienced physiotherapist, had 24-hours online lessons. Students exposed to the same course in the previous five academic years (n = 112), delivered with face-to-face conventional lessons, served as a historical control. The course was organized in 3 sequential phases: (1) PowerPoint presentations were uploaded to the University online platform, (2) asynchronous video recorded lectures were provided on the same platform, and (3) between online lectures, the lecturer and students could communicate through an email chat to promote understanding, dispel any doubts and collect requests for supplementary material (e.g., scientific articles, videos, webinars, podcasts). Outcomes were: (1) satisfaction as routinely measured by University with a national instrument and populated in a database; (2) performance as measured with an oral examination. RESULTS: We compared satisfaction with the course, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale, resulting in no differences between online and face-to-face teaching (Kruskal-Wallis 2 = 0.24, df = 1, p = 0.62). We weighted up students' results by comparing their mean performances with the mean performances of the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years, founding a statistical significance in favour of online teaching (Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 1665, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Online teaching in entry-level Physiotherapy seems to be a feasible option to face COVID-19 pandemic, as satisfies students as well as face-to-face courses and leading to a similar performance. Entry-level Bachelors in Physiotherapy may consider moving to eLearning to facilitate access to higher education. Universities will have to train lecturers to help them develop appropriate pedagogical skills, and supply suitable support in terms of economic, organizational, and technological issues, aimed at guaranteeing a high level of education to their students. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Prevalence and incidence of low back pain among runners: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there is currently sparse evidence about prevalence, incidence and risk factors for LBP among runners. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate among runners: prevalence and incidence of LBP and specific risk factors for the onset of LBP. METHODS: A systematic review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. The research was conducted in the following databases from their inception to 31st of July 2019: PubMed; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Ovid; PsycINFO; PSYNDEX; Embase; SPORTDiscus; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The checklists of The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to investigate the risk of bias of the included studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included and the interrater agreement for full-text selection was good (K = 0.78; 0.61-0.80 IC 95%). Overall, low values of prevalence (0.7-20.2%) and incidence (0.3-22%) of LBP among runners were reported. Most reported risk factors were: running for more than 6 years; body mass index > 24; higher physical height; not performing traditional aerobics activity weekly; restricted range of motion of hip flexion; difference between leg-length; poor hamstrings and back flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and incidence of LBP among runners are low compared to the others running related injuries and to general, or specific population of athletes. View the low level of incidence and prevalence of LBP, running could be interpreted as a protective factor against the onset of LBP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018102001.

Italian suggestions for pulmonary rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients recovering from acute respiratory failure: results of a Delphi process.

There is a need of consensus about the pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COVID-19 after discharge from acute care. To facilitate the knowledge of the evidence and its translation into practice, we developed suggestions based on experts' opinion. A steering committee identified areas and questions sent to experts. Other international experts participated to a RAND Delphi method in reaching consensus and proposing further suggestions. Strong agreement in suggestions was defined when the mean agreement was >7 (1 = no agreement and 9 = maximal agreement). Panelists response rate was >95%. Twenty-three questions from 4 areas: Personnel protection equipment, phenotypes, assessments, interventions, were identified and experts answered with 121 suggestions, 119 of which received high level of concordance. The evidence-based suggestions provide the clinicians with current evidence and clinical experts opinion. This framework can be used to facilitate clinical decision making within the context of the individual patient. Further studies will evaluate the clinical usefulness of these suggestions.

Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant.

BACKGROUND: An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes. METHODS: We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as "statistically significant and clinically relevant", "statistically significant but not clinically relevant", "not statistically significant but clinically relevant", and "not statistically significant and not clinically relevant". Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power. RESULTS: From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error). CONCLUSION: Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: the need to present minimal important differences units in meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The results of meta-analyses are all too often elusive, making it difficult to interpret their relevance for clinical practice. Reporting them in minimal important difference (MID) units could improve the interpretation of evidence in meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to compare, via calculation of MID units, outcomes after multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) versus usual care for pain relief in chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: We re-analyzed the data of a published Cochrane review on MBR. To attribute a MID to each pain instrument, we first searched the literature for MIDs. The MID was imputed for instruments without an established MID. We compared outcomes after MBR versus usual care for chronic LBP in the short (< 3 months), mid (> 3 and < 12 months), and long (≥12 months) term. The results of the meta-analyses are reported in MID units and interpreted as follows: if the overall effect size was greater than 1, many patients gained clinically important benefits, if it lay between 0.5 and 1.0, an appreciable number benefited, and if it fell below 0.5 few did. RESULTS: Improvement in back pain was observed in an appreciable number of patients in the short- and medium-term after MBR: the MID was lower but still close to 1 (0.75 and 0.86 MID units, respectively). MBR probably had little or no benefit for the majority of patients in the long-term, where the MID approached 0 (0.27 MID units, confidence interval 0.07-0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses expressed in MID units may offer better insight into the clinical relevance of MBR: the intervention is highly recommended for reducing pain in the short- and medium-term but cannot be recommended for long-term pain reduction since the benefit decays rapidly.

Single leg squat performance in physically and non-physically active individuals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Single-leg squat (SLS) is a functional test visually rated by clinicians for assessing lower limb function as a preventive injury strategy. SLS clinical rating is a qualitative evaluation and it does not count objective outcomes as kinematics data and surface electromyography (sEMG) assessment. Based on the SLS rating, the aims of this study were (i) to determine the clinical rating agreement among six raters and (ii) to assess kinematic and sEMG predictors of good SLS performance in physically and non-physically active individuals. METHODS: Seventy-two healthy adults, divided in physically active and non-physically active groups, performed three SLSs on their dominant leg. Clinical ratings, kinematic data and sEMG were acquired. By using a validated clinical scale, six expert clinicians rated each SLS watching a video at three different time points. Intra and inter-rater agreement of clinical ratings were undertaken and a binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine kinematic and sEMG as predictors of SLS performance. RESULTS: The weighted kappa coefficient for intra-rater reliability within each rater ranged between moderate and almost perfect agreement (0.55-0.85) whereas the weighted kappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability among raters was fair (0.34, time point 0; 0.31, time point 1; 0.30, time point 2). SLS analyses of physically active compared to non-physically active group showed a statistically significant difference in knee flexion and hip flexion (p = 0.041 and p = 0.023 respectively) and no difference in clinical ratings (p = 0.081). Greater knee flexion can predict the good SLS performance taking into account the belonging group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Physically active individuals seemed to be at less risk to perform a non-good SLS and they had greater knee and hip flexions kinematics than non-physically active individuals. Knee flexion can predict the SLS performance quality therefore a greater knee flexion might also be considered a protective element from injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (trial has been registred retrospectively: NCT03203083. Date registration: June 21, 2017.