Static Balance in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias: a Cross-sectional Study.

Motor and somatosensory pathway dysfunction due to degeneration of long tracts in hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSP) indicates that postural abnormalities may be a relevant disease feature. However, balance assessments have been underutilized to study these conditions. How does the static balance of individuals with HSP with eyes open and closed differ from healthy controls, and how does it relate to disease severity? This cross-sectional case-control study assessed the static balance of 17 subjects with genetically confirmed HSP and 17 healthy individuals, evaluating the center of pressure (COP) variables captured by a force platform. The root-mean-square of velocities and mean of displacements amplitudes in mediolateral and anteroposterior axes were correlated with disease severity. All COP parameters' performances were significantly impaired in HSP subjects compared to controls (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). COP with eyes open and closed differed for all variables within the HSP group, whereas in the control group, differences were observed only for anteroposterior velocity and amplitude. Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale presented moderate direct correlations with the most COP variables (Rho = - 0.520 to - 0.736). HSP individuals presented significant postural instability with eyes open and to a greater extent with eyes closed, corroborating the clinical findings of somatosensorial and proprioceptive pathways dysfunction. The degrees of proprioceptive and motor impairments are mutually correlated, suggesting that similar pathophysiological mechanisms operate for the degeneration of these long tracts. COP parameters can be seen as disease severity biomarkers of HSP, and they should be assessed in future clinical trials.

G protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) in the dorsal hippocampus regulates memory consolidation in gonadectomized male mice, likely via different signaling mechanisms than in female mice.

Studies in ovariectomized (OVX) female rodents suggest that G protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) is a key regulator of memory, yet little is known about its importance to memory in males or the cellular mechanisms underlying its mnemonic effects in either sex. In OVX mice, bilateral infusion of the GPER agonist G-1 into the dorsal hippocampus (DH) enhances object recognition and spatial memory consolidation in a manner dependent on rapid activation of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) signaling, cofilin phosphorylation, and actin polymerization in the DH. However, the effects of GPER on memory consolidation and DH cell signaling in males are unknown. Thus, the present study first assessed effects of DH infusion of G-1 or the GPER antagonist G-15 on object recognition and spatial memory consolidation in gonadectomized (GDX) male mice. As in OVX mice, immediate post-training bilateral DH infusion of G-1 enhanced, whereas G-15 impaired, memory consolidation in the object recognition and object placement tasks. However, G-1 did not increase levels of phosphorylated JNK (p46, p54) or cofilin in the DH 5, 15, or 30 min after infusion, nor did it affect phosphorylation of ERK (p42, p44), PI3K, or Akt. Levels of phospho-cAMP-responsive element binding protein (CREB) were elevated in the DH 30 min following G-1 infusion, indicating that GPER in males activates a yet unknown signaling mechanism that triggers CREB-mediated gene transcription. Our findings show for the first time that GPER in the DH regulates memory consolidation in males and suggests sex differences in underlying signaling mechanisms.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

The effectiveness of allied health and nurse practitioner models-of-care in managing musculoskeletal conditions in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are the most common health condition seen in emergency departments. Hence, the most effective approaches to managing these conditions is of interest. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal pain in ED. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for published randomised trials that compared the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in ED to usual ED care. Trials were eligible if they enrolled participants presenting to ED with a musculoskeletal condition including low back pain, neck pain, upper or lower limb pain and any soft tissue injury. Trials that included patients with serious pathology (e.g. malignancy, infection or cauda equina syndrome) were excluded. The primary outcome was patient-flow; other outcomes included pain intensity, disability, hospital admission and re-presentation rates, patient satisfaction, medication prescription and adverse events. Two reviewers performed search screening, data extraction, quality and certainty of evidence assessments. RESULTS: We identified 1746 records and included 5 randomised trials (n = 1512 patients). Only one trial (n = 260) reported on patient-flow. The study provides very-low certainty evidence that a greater proportion of patients were seen within 20 min when seen by a physician (98%) than when seen by a nurse (86%) or physiotherapist (77%). There was no difference in pain intensity and disability between patients managed by ED physicians and those managed by physiotherapists. Evidence was limited regarding patient satisfaction, inpatient admission and ED re-presentation rates, medication prescription and adverse events. The certainty of evidence for secondary outcomes ranged from very-low to low, but generally did not suggest a benefit of one model over another. CONCLUSION: There is limited research to judge the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Currently, it is unclear as to whether allied health and nurse practitioners are more effective than ED physicians at managing musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Further high-quality trials investigating the impact of models of care on service and health outcomes are needed.

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

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

Management of low back pain in Australian emergency departments for culturally and linguistically diverse populations from 2016 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Disparate care in the ED for minority populations with low back pain is a long-standing issue reported in the USA. Our objective was to compare care delivery for low back pain in Australian EDs between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and non-CALD patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of medical records of the ED of three public hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. We included adult patients diagnosed with non-serious low back pain at ED discharge. CALD status was defined by country of birth, preferred language and use of interpreter service. The main outcome measures were ambulance transport, lumbar imaging, opioid administration and hospital admission. RESULTS: Of the 14 642 included presentations, 7656 patients (52.7%) were born overseas, 3695 (25.2%) preferred communicating in a non-English language and 1224 (8.4%) required an interpreter. Patients born overseas were less likely to arrive by ambulance (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.73) than Australian-born patients. Patients who preferred a non-English language were also less likely to arrive by ambulance (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), yet more likely to be imaged (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) or be admitted to hospital (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29) than Native-English-speaking patients. Patients who required an interpreter were more likely to receive imaging (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64) or be admitted (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.73) compared with those who communicated independently. CALD patients were generally less likely to receive weak opioids than non-CALD patients (aOR range 0.76-0.87), yet no difference was found in the use of any opioid or strong opioids. CONCLUSION: Patients with low back pain from a CALD background, especially those lacking English proficiency, are significantly more likely to be imaged and admitted in Australian EDs. Future interventions improving the quality of ED care for low back pain should give special consideration to CALD patients.

Australian emergency department care for older adults diagnosed with low back pain of lumbar spine origin: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record system data (2016-2019).

BACKGROUND: In Australian emergency departments, 30% of all back pain presentations are for older adults. Relatively little is known about the care that this population receives during an emergency department stay, including admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to describe emergency department management of older adults diagnosed with a lumbar spine condition and to determine predictors of healthcare use in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data of adults aged ≥ 65 years with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis. Demographic, clinical care (date and time of presentation and discharge, length of stay in the emergency department, mode of arrival, triage category, re-presentations to the emergency department (within 48 h), discharge mode, the administration of pain-relieving medicines, lumbar imaging, and laboratory tests) and costs data were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analyses and multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Over the period January 2016 to December 2019 there were 4,093 presentations to emergency departments by older adults with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis (82.0% were non-specific low back pain). Most were female (58.3%), 39.9% had some form of lumbar imaging, and 34.1% were admitted to hospital. The most administered pain medicines were opioid analgesics (67.1%), followed by paracetamol (63.9%) and NSAIDs (33.0%). Predictors of healthcare use and hospital inpatient admission were receiving a laboratory test and receiving any opioid. For the financial period 2019-20, the mean (SD) total cost of care per presentation was $5,629 ($11,982). CONCLUSION: In the emergency department, more than two thirds of older adults with a lumbar spine condition received opioid analgesics. They often received imaging and laboratory tests, had high costs and were admitted to hospital. Alternative pathways of care are needed to support older adults with low back pain, to receive guideline-concordant emergency department care and have good health outcomes.

A Review of the Development of Multitarget Molecules against HIV-TB Coinfection Pathogens.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) produces the pathologic basis of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). An increase in the viral load in the body leads to a decline in the number of T lymphocytes, compromising the patient's immune system. Some opportunistic diseases may result, such as tuberculosis (TB), which is the most common in seropositive patients. Long-term treatment is required for HIV-TB coinfection, and cocktails of drugs for both diseases are used concomitantly. The most challenging aspects of treatment are the occurrence of drug interactions, overlapping toxicity, no adherence to treatment and cases of resistance. Recent approaches have involved using molecules that can act synergistically on two or more distinct targets. The development of multitarget molecules could overcome the disadvantages of the therapies used to treat HIV-TB coinfection. This report is the first review on using molecules with activities against HIV and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) for molecular hybridization and multitarget strategies. Here, we discuss the importance and development of multiple targets as a means of improving adherence to therapy in cases of the coexistence of these pathologies. In this context, several studies on the development of structural entities to treat HIV-TB simultaneously are discussed.

Progression of Functional Gait in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias.

Hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSP) are characterized by progressive deterioration of axonal projections of upper motor neurons leading to abnormal locomotion. The clinical course of HSP as well as the definition of the best instruments to assess its progression is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the progression of functional gait in individuals with HSP and to define sensitivity to change, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and validity of timed functional tests of gait (TFT). The study was constituted of two phases: a cross-sectional study and a prospective cohort of 18 months. Twenty-five patients (17 being SPG4), and twenty-five age- and sex-matched control individuals performed TFT. Spastic paraplegia rating scale (SPRS), ten-meter walking test (10MWT), timed up and go test (TUG), both at self-selected and maximal walking speeds, and six-minute walking test (6MWT) were performed on baseline in both groups and after 18 months of follow-up only in the HSP cohort. In the cross-sectional analysis, all TFTs performances were greatly impaired in HSP patients compared to controls. After 18 months of follow-up, TFTs did not differ significantly from baseline in the statistical analysis, with some tests showing more frequent improvement than worsening. We have provided effect size measures and MCID for the evaluated instruments. HSPs clearly compromised TFTs performances, which were valid instruments for assessing disease severity. However, TFTs and SPRS did not capture the very slow motor evolution of HSPs, reinforcing the necessity of additional biomarkers of disease progression.

Multiple species animal movements: network properties, disease dynamics and the impact of targeted control actions.

Infectious diseases in livestock are well-known to infect multiple hosts and persist through a combination of within- and between-host transmission pathways. Uncertainty remains about the epidemic dynamics of diseases being introduced on farms with more than one susceptible host species. Here, we describe multi-host contact networks and elucidate the potential of disease spread through farms with multiple hosts. Four years of between-farm animal movement among all farms of a Brazilian state were described through a static and monthly snapshot of network representations. We developed a stochastic multilevel model to simulate scenarios in which infection was seeded into single host and multi-host farms to quantify disease spread potential, and simulate network-based control actions used to evaluate the reduction of secondarily infected farms. We showed that the swine network was more connected than cattle and small ruminants in both the static and monthly snapshots. The small ruminant network was highly fragmented, however, contributed to interconnecting farms, with other hosts acting as intermediaries throughout the networks. When a single host was initially infected, secondary infections were observed across farms with all other species. Our stochastic multi-host model demonstrated that targeting the top 3.25% of the farms ranked by degree reduced the number of secondarily infected farms. The results of the simulation highlight the importance of considering multi-host dynamics and contact networks while designing surveillance and preparedness control strategies against pathogens known to infect multiple species.

Do Patients with Acute Low Back Pain in Emergency Departments Have More Severe Symptoms than Those in General Practice? ASystematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. RESULTS: We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale). CONCLUSION: Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

Cancer patients admitted in the emergency department: A single-centre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyse patients' clinical profiles seen at an emergency unit of a public oncology reference hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study, with data collection through patients' medical records seen between 2016 and 2018. The identification of patients was carried out through research on hospital admission authorization guides. RESULTS: A total of 2932 medical records were evaluated, of which only 21.5% were cancer patients. A cancer diagnosis was made for 21.5% of patients during hospitalisation. In this group, pain and weight loss are frequent symptoms, and haematological diseases (15.2%) were the most frequent tumour type. Patients with a previous cancer diagnosis presented the most prevalent tumour breast (18.3%) and altered consciousness level as a leading symptom. Analgesics were the most prescribed drugs in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed two distinct groups of cancer patients: with or without a previous cancer diagnosis. However, these two groups are comparable in almost all the variables analysed. Therefore, we believe that the factors that could guide the care in an emergency are related to education on cancer symptoms for the population to contribute to an early diagnosis and cancer training for emergency department (ED) professionals' to better monitor advanced-stage patients for symptom management.

Effectiveness of brief patient information materials for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING/PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions. RESULTS: All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs. CONCLUSION: The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP.

Paramedic management of back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Research examining paramedic care of back pain is limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe ambulance service use and usual paramedic care for back pain, the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care of back pain, and the characteristics of people with back pain who seek care from paramedics. METHODS: We included published peer-reviewed studies of people with back pain who received any type of paramedic care on-scene and/or during transport to hospital. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SciELO from inception to July 2022. Two authors independently screened and selected the studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality using the PEDro, AMSTAR 2 and Hawker tools. This review followed the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: From 1987 articles we included 26 articles (25 unique studies) consisting of 22 observational studies, three randomised controlled trials and one review. Back pain is frequently in the top 3 reasons for calls to an ambulance service with more than two thirds of cases receiving ambulance dispatch. It takes ~ 8 min from time of call to an ambulance being dispatched and 16% of calls for back pain receive transport to hospital. Pharmacological management of back pain includes benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, opioids, nitrous oxide, and paracetamol. Non-pharmacological care is poorly reported and includes referral to alternate health service, counselling and behavioural interventions and self-care advice. Only three trials have evaluated effectiveness of paramedic treatments (TENS, active warming, and administration of opioids) and no studies provided safety or costing data. CONCLUSION: Paramedics are frequently responding to people with back pain. Use of pain medicines is common but varies according to the type of back pain and setting, while non-pharmacological care is poorly reported. There is a lack of research evaluating the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care for back pain.

The G protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) regulates recognition and aversively-motivated memory in male rats.

Estrogens, particularly 17ß-estradiol (estradiol, E2), regulate memory formation. E2 acts through its intracellular receptors, estrogen receptors (ER) ERα and ERß, as well as a recently identified G protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER). Although the effects of E2 on memory have been investigated, studies examining the effects of GPER stimulation are scarce. Selective GPER agonism improves memory in ovariectomized female rats, but little information is available regarding the effects of GPER stimulation in male rodents. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of the GPER agonist, G1, on consolidation and reconsolidation of inhibitory avoidance (IA) and object recognition (OR) memory in male rats. Animals received vehicle, G1 (15, 75, 150 µg/kg; i.p.), or the GPER antagonist G15 (100 µg/kg; i.p.) immediately after training, or G1 (150 µg/kg; i.p.) 3 or 6 h after training. To investigate reconsolidation, G1 was administered immediately after IA retention Test 1. Results indicated that G1 administered immediately after training at the highest dose enhanced both OR and IA memory consolidation, while GPER blockade immediately after training impaired OR. No effects of GPER stimulation were observed when G1 was given 3 or 6 h after training or after Test 1. The present findings provide evidence that GPER is involved in the early stages of memory consolidation in both neutral and emotional memory tasks in male adult rats.

Appropriateness of imaging decisions for low back pain presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019-20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse). RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8-11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome). CONCLUSION: In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.

Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation in Severe Atrophic Mandibular Fractures: A New Method for Guided Reduction and Temporary Stabilization Before Fixation.

In severe atrophic mandibular fractures, the absence of stable occlusion, as well as poor bone volume at the fracture site, constitutes a lack of references during surgery to achieve accurate fracture reduction. Unsuccessful reduction and stabilization can lead to several complications, such as fracture misalignments, malunion, and facial asymmetry. An alternative to avoid the aforementioned issues is fracture reduction based on virtual surgical planning (VSP) technology. However, there is little information regarding VSP protocols for the management of mandible fractures. Herein, a new technique with low cost is reported in which VSP and computer-aided manufacturing of a positioning guide were applied in a 72-year-old female patient with bilateral fractures in her atrophic mandible in the body region. The positioning guide was used during fracture reduction on the inferior surface of the mandible as per the virtual reduction. A 3-dimensional mandible model was also printed, facilitating the prebent 2.4-mm reconstructive plate. The surgical procedure was performed with no complications, resulting in the accurate fit of both the bent plate and the guide. A postoperative computed tomography scan showed good condylar position, fracture reduction, and hardware adaptation. A follow-up approximately 2 years later showed that she was successfully rehabilitated with the dental prosthesis. Therefore, VSP is a valuable tool for attaining a predictable result in the treatment of severe atrophic mandibular fracture, with a reduced operative duration, acceptable precision of fracture reduction, and low cost.

Clinical course of patients with low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0-100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation. RESULTS: Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0-100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2-77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2-55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8-21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.