Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Background: To determine the feasibility, reliability, and safety of the remote five times sit to stand test (5STS) test in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing surgical treatment for lower gastrointestinal cancer at a major referral hospital in Sydney between July and November 2022 were included. Participants completed the 5STS test both face-to-face and remotely, with the order randomised. Outcomes included measures of feasibility, reliability, and safety. Results: Of fifty-five patients identified, seventeen (30.9%) were not interested, one (1.8%) had no internet coverage, and thirty-seven (67.3%) consented and completed both 5STS tests. The mean (SD) time taken to complete the face-to-face and remote 5STS tests was 9.1 (2.4) and 9.5 (2.3) seconds, respectively. Remote collection by telehealth was feasible, with only two participants (5.4%) having connectivity issues at the start of the remote assessment, but not interfering with the tests. The remote 5STS test showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.957), with limits of agreement within acceptable ranges and no significant systematic errors observed. No adverse events were observed within either test environment. Conclusions: Remote 5STS for the assessment of functional lower extremity strength in gastrointestinal cancer patients is feasible, reliable, and safe, and can be used in clinical and research settings.

Individualised, targeted step count intervention following gastrointestinal cancer surgery: The Fit-4-Home randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the effectiveness of an individualised, daily targeted step count intervention and usual care compared with usual care alone on improving surgical and patient reported outcomes. METHODS: The Fit-4-Home trial was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted from April 2019 to February 2021. Patients undergoing elective surgery for liver, stomach or pancreatic cancer in two Australian hospitals were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to receive an individualised, targeted step count intervention and usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). A wearable activity tracker was provided to the intervention group to monitor their daily step count target. Primary outcome was the length of stay in the gastrointestinal ward. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complication rates, discharge destination, quality of life, physical activity, pain, fatigue, distress and hospital re-admission within 30 days. Outcome measures were compared between groups using non-parametric statistics. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients recruited, 47 were randomised to the intervention group and 49 were randomised to the control group. The median (interquartile) length of stay in the ward was 7 days (5.0-13.0) in the intervention group and 7 days (5.0- 12.0) in the control group (p = 0.330). Fatigue scores were worse in the intervention group when compared to control (p = 0.018). No other differences between groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: An individualised, daily targeted step count intervention and usual care did not confer additional benefits in reducing the length of stay in the ward compared to usual care alone for patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000194167).

Walking, Cycling, and Swimming for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of walking/running, cycling, or swimming for treating or preventing nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Five databases were searched to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating walking/running, cycling, or swimming to treat or prevent LBP were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: No trials assessed LBP prevention or addressed acute LBP. Nineteen trials (2362 participants) assessed treatment of chronic/recurrent LBP. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions in reducing pain in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.28, 1.34) and medium term (5 trials; SMD, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.10, 1.49). High-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions at reducing disability in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.38) and medium term (4 trials; SMD, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.51). There was high-certainty evidence of a small effect in favor of walking/running compared to minimal/no intervention for reducing pain in the short term (10 trials; SMD, -0.23; 95% CI: -0.35, -0.10) and medium term (6 trials; SMD, -0.26; 95% CI: -0.40, -0.13) and disability in the short term (7 trials; SMD, -0.19; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.06). Scarcity of trials meant few conclusions could be drawn regarding cycling and swimming. CONCLUSION: Although less effective than alternate interventions, walking/running was slightly more effective than minimal/no intervention for treating chronic/recurrent LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):85-99. Epub 16 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10612.

Is preoperative physical activity level of patients undergoing cancer surgery associated with postoperative outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the role of preoperative physical activity (PA) level and its influence on postoperative outcomes, especially for patients undergoing cancer surgery. AIM: To investigate if the level of preoperative PA in patients undergoing cancer surgery is associated with postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay (LOS) and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: An electronic search was performed from inception to 26th November 2017 in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL. Studies investigating the association between objective or subjective level of PA and postoperative complication rates, LOS and QOL were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. When possible, summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect models. RESULTS: 13 studies (5523 unique patients) were included. Overall, most studies were rated as having low or moderate risk of bias. Higher preoperative level of PA was not significantly associated with absence of postoperative complications (OR = 2.60; 95%CI = 0.59 to 11.37) but was significantly associated with shorter LOS (OR = 3.66; 95%CI = 1.38 to 9.6) and postoperative QOL (OR = 1.29; 95%CI = 1.11 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: The available literature suggests higher levels of preoperative PA in patients undergoing cancer surgery may be associated with better postoperative outcomes, particularly shorter LOS and better QOL. There is a need for high-quality studies investigating the association between preoperative PA and postoperative outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017082334. Available from:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017082334.

Risk factors for low back pain and sciatica: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition and it is associated with significant disability and work absenteeism worldwide. A variety of environmental and individual characteristics have been reported to increase the risk of LBP. To our knowledge, there has been no previous attempt to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews of risk factors for LBP or sciatica. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of risk factors for LBP, we completed an umbrella review of the evidence from existing systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN: An umbrella review was carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases. To focus on the most recent evidence, we only included systematic reviews published in the last 5 years (2011-2016) examining any risk factor for LBP or sciatica. Only systematic reviews of cohort studies enrolling participants without LBP and sciatica at baseline were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed independently by two review authors, using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. RESULTS: We included 15 systematic reviews containing 134 cohort studies. Four systematic reviews were of high methodological quality and 11 were of moderate quality. Of the 54 risk factors investigated, 38 risk factors were significantly associated with increased risk of LBP or sciatica in at least one systematic review and the odds ratios ranged from 1.26 to 13.00. Adverse risk factors included characteristics of the individual (eg, older age), poor general health (eg, smoking), physical stress on spine (eg, vibration), and psychological stress (eg, depression). CONCLUSION: Poor general health, physical and psychological stress, and characteristics of the person increase risk for a future episode of LBP or sciatica.

What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention.

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause-eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Trial of Pregabalin for Acute and Chronic Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica can be disabling, and evidence regarding medical treatments is limited. Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of some types of neuropathic pain. This study examined whether pregabalin may reduce the intensity of sciatica. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin at a dose of 150 mg per day that was adjusted to a maximum dose of 600 mg per day or matching placebo for up to 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the leg-pain intensity score on a 10-point scale (with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) at week 8; the leg-pain intensity score was also evaluated at week 52, a secondary time point for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the extent of disability, back-pain intensity, and quality-of-life measures at prespecified time points over the course of 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent randomization, of whom 108 received pregabalin and 101 received placebo; after randomization, 2 patients in the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses. At week 8, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.7 in the pregabalin group and 3.1 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 1.2; P=0.19). At week 52, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.4 in the pregabalin group and 3.0 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 1.0; P=0.46). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to any secondary outcome at either week 8 or week 52. A total of 227 adverse events were reported in the pregabalin group and 124 in the placebo group. Dizziness was more common in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pregabalin did not significantly reduce the intensity of leg pain associated with sciatica and did not significantly improve other outcomes, as compared with placebo, over the course of 8 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRECISE Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000530729 .).

Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reveal a range of degenerative findings and anatomical abnormalities; however, the clinical importance of these remains uncertain and controversial. We aimed to investigate if the presence of MRI findings identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched. We included RCTs investigating MRI findings as treatment effect modifiers for patients with LBP or sciatica. We excluded studies with specific diseases as the cause of LBP. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Each MRI finding was examined for its individual capacity for effect modification. RESULTS: Eight published trials met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of trials was inconsistent. Substantial variability in MRI findings, treatments and outcomes across the eight trials prevented pooling of data. Patients with Modic type 1 when compared with patients with Modic type 2 had greater improvements in function when treated by Diprospan (steroid) injection, compared with saline. Patients with central disc herniation when compared with patients without central disc herniation had greater improvements in pain when treated by surgery, compared with rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual trials suggested that some MRI findings might be effect modifiers for specific interventions, none of these interactions were investigated in more than a single trial. High quality, adequately powered trials investigating MRI findings as effect modifiers are essential to determine the clinical importance of MRI findings in LBP and sciatica ( PROSPERO: CRD42013006571).

Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rates of imaging for low-back pain are high and are associated with increased health care costs and radiation exposure as well as potentially poorer patient outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the use of imaging for low-back pain. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest records to June 23, 2014. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series studies that assessed interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging in any clinical setting, including primary, emergency and specialist care. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used raw data on imaging rates to calculate summary statistics. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8500 records were identified through the literature search. Of the 54 potentially eligible studies reviewed in full, 7 were included in our review. Clinical decision support involving a modified referral form in a hospital setting reduced imaging by 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.2% to 40.5%). Targeted reminders to primary care physicians of appropriate indications for imaging reduced referrals for imaging by 22.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 36.8%). Interventions that used practitioner audits and feedback, practitioner education or guideline dissemination did not significantly reduce imaging rates. Lack of power within some of the included studies resulted in lack of statistical significance despite potentially clinically important effects. INTERPRETATION: Clinical decision support in a hospital setting and targeted reminders to primary care doctors were effective interventions in reducing the use of imaging for low-back pain. These are potentially low-cost interventions that would substantially decrease medical expenditures associated with the management of low-back pain.

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the best red flags to indicate the possibility of fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain in primary, secondary, or tertiary care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Older age, prolonged corticosteroid use, severe trauma, and presence of a contusion or abrasion increase the likelihood of spinal fracture (likelihood was higher with multiple red flags); a history of malignancy increases the likelihood of spinal malignancy.

Rigid versus semi-rigid orthotic use following TMC arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint of the human thumb is the second most common joint in the hand affected by osteoarthritis. TMC arthroplasty is a common procedure used to alleviate symptoms. No randomized controlled trials have been published on the efficacy of different post-operative orthotic regimes. METHOD: Fifty six participants who underwent TMC arthroplasty were allocated to either rigid orthotic or semi-rigid orthotic groups. Both groups started an identical exercise program at two weeks following surgery. Outcome measures were assessed by an assessor blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was the Patient Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and secondary outcomes included the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), thumb palmar abduction, first metacarpophalangeal extension and three point pinch grip. Measures were taken pre-operatively, at six weeks, three months and one year post-operatively. Between-group differences were analyzed with linear regression. RESULTS: Both groups performed equally well. There was no significant between-group difference for PRWHE scores (0.47, CI -11.5 to 12.4), including subscales for pain and function, or for any of the secondary outcomes at one year follow-up. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in outcomes between using a rigid or semi-rigid orthosis after TMC arthroplasty. Patient comfort, cost and availability may determine choice between orthoses in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b RCT.

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. REVIEW METHODS: Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. RESULTS: We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, 95% confidence interval 3% to 25%), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33%, 10% to 67%), severe trauma (11%, 8% to 16%), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62%, 49% to 74%). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90%, 34% to 99%). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33%, 22% to 46%). CONCLUSIONS: While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.

Prognosis and prognostic factors for patients with persistent wrist pain who proceed to wrist arthroscopy.

UNLABELLED: Wrist pain is common. People with persistent pain commonly undergo arthroscopic investigation. Little is known about the prognosis or prognostic factors for these patients. The purpose of the study was to evaluate prognosis and prognostic factors for pain and functional disability in patients with persistent wrist pain who proceed to arthroscopic investigation. The study design used was a prospective cohort study. One hundred and five consecutive participants who underwent arthroscopic investigation for undiagnosed wrist pain for at least four-week duration were recruited. Patient-rated wrist and hand evaluation (PRWHE) scores were determined at baseline (before arthroscopy) and one year after arthroscopy. One-year follow-up data were obtained for 97 (92%) of 105 participants. Mean PRWHE total score declined from 49 of 100 (standard deviation [SD] 18.5) at baseline to 26 of 100 (SD 20.4) at one year. Two prognostic factors were identified: baseline PRWHE and duration of symptoms. These factors explained 19% and 5% of the variability in the final PRWHE score, respectively. Results of provocative wrist tests and arthroscopic findings did not significantly contribute to prognosis in this cohort. This study provides the first robust evidence of the prognosis of persistent wrist pain. Participants who underwent arthroscopic investigation for persistent wrist pain improved on average by approximately 50% at one year; however, most continued to have some pain and disability. Duration of pain and PRWHE at baseline explained 24% of the one-year PRWHE score. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

A literature review reveals that trials evaluating treatment of non-specific low back pain use inconsistent criteria to identify serious pathologies and nerve root involvement.

OBJECTIVES: The broad aim of this study was to assess the homogeneity of patients included in trials of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). To do this, we investigated the consistency and clarity of criteria used to identify and exclude participants with serious pathologies and nerve root compromise in randomized controlled trials, investigating interventions for NSLBP. METHODS: We searched Medline database for randomized controlled trials of low back pain (LBP). published between 2000 and 2009. We then randomly selected and screened trials for inclusion until we had 50 eligible trials. Data were extracted on the criteria used to identify cases of serious conditions (e.g. cancer, fracture) and nerve root involvement. RESULTS: The majority of papers (35/50) explicitly excluded patients with serious pathology. However, the terminology used and examples given were highly variable. Nerve root involvement was an exclusion criterion in the majority but not all studies. The criteria used for excluding patients with nerve root involvement varied greatly between studies. The most common criteria were 'motor, sensory or reflex changes' (nine studies), followed by 'pain radiating below the knee' (five studies) and 'reduced straight leg raise which reproduces leg pain' (five studies). In half of the included studies, the criteria used, while alluding to nerve root involvement, were not explained adequately for us to determine the types of patients included or excluded. DISCUSSION: The inconsistent and unclear criteria used to identify cases of serious pathology and nerve root compromise means that published trials of LBP likely include heterogeneous patient populations. This trait limits our ability to make comparisons across trials or pool studies. Standardization and consensus is important for future research.