Mechanisms of vocational interventions for return to work from musculoskeletal conditions: a mediation analysis of the MI-NAV trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and to what extent, return to work (RTW) expectancy and workability mediate the effect of two vocational interventions on reducing sickness absence in workers on sick leave from a musculoskeletal condition. METHODS: This is a preplanned mediation analysis of a three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial which included 514 employed working adults with musculoskeletal conditions on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for ≥7 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to one of three treatment arms; usual case management (UC) (n=174), UC plus motivational interviewing (MI) (n=170) and UC plus a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) (n=170). The primary outcome was the number of sickness absence days over 6 months from randomisation. Hypothesised mediators included RTW expectancy and workability assessed 12 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: The mediated effect of the MI arm compared with UC on sickness absence days through RTW expectancy was -4.98 days (-8.89 to -1.04), and workability was -3.17 days (-8.55 to 2.32). The mediated effect of the SVAI arm compared with UC on sickness absence days through RTW expectancy was -4.39 days (-7.60 to -1.47), and workability was -3.21 days (-7.90 to 1.50). The mediated effects for workability were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new evidence for the mechanisms of vocational interventions to reduce sickness absence related to sick leave due to musculoskeletal conditions. Changing an individual's expectation that RTW is likely may result in meaningful reductions in sickness absence days. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03871712.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS. METHODS: We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. MAIN RESULTS: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Targeting neurotrophic factors for low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. METHODS: We searched published and trial registry reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: Nine studies (3370 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) may reduce pain at 4 weeks (mean difference [MD] -6.75, 95% CI: -8.61, -4.90) and 12 weeks (MD -6.16, 95% CI: -8.38, -3.94), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at 4 weeks (MD -1.40, 95% CI: -8.26, 5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, 95% CI: -13.69, 7.67) and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.78, 6.00). CONCLUSION: Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects compared to those observed in commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.

Post-fracture serum cytokine levels are not associated with a later diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome: a case-control study nested in a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling pain disorder that is most common after a distal limb fracture. While the acute systemic immune response to the injury is thought to play a role in the development of CRPS, this hypothesis has never been tested directly. Thus, we evaluated whether elevated levels of circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines early after a fracture were associated with the development of CRPS. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study nested within a prospective cohort study. Individuals with wrist and/or hand fractures were recruited from specialist hand units. Baseline clinical data were obtained from participants within 28 days of fracture. CRPS status was determined 16 weeks after the fracture using a two-stage diagnostic process. Cytokine assays were obtained from all cases (defined using the Budapest criteria) and a random sample of those who did not have CRPS at 16 weeks. We calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to determine the risk of CRPS associated with the expression of each of 25 cytokines. RESULTS: Baseline data were collected for 702 consenting participants, of whom 535 provided blood samples. Follow-up at 16 weeks was 97.2%. 15 (2.2% of the cohort) met the Budapest CRPS criteria and 69 (including those who met the Budapest criteria; 9.8%) met the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) CRPS criteria. In all of the primary analyses (using Budapest criteria) and 49/50 secondary analyses (using IASP criteria), 95% confidence intervals for the association between cytokine levels and the risk of subsequently developing CRPS included the null value (OR = 1). However, the confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that early post-injury expression of systemic cytokines was associated with a CRPS diagnosis 16 weeks after injury. This study does not provide support for the hypothesis that innate immune activation has a determinative role in the development of CRPS.

Development and measurement properties of the AxEL (attitude toward education and advice for low-back-pain) questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. METHODS: We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. RESULTS: We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset.

If exercise is medicine, why don't we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Reviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. RESULTS: We identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality. CONCLUSION: Exercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261285; Open Science Framework: osf.io/my3ec/.

A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Observational Studies That Use Mediation Analyses.

Mediation analysis is a common statistical method used to investigate mechanisms of health exposure and interventions. The reporting quality of mediation studies used in randomised controlled trials has been considered heterogeneous and incomplete. The reporting quality of mediation analysis in observational studies is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to describe the reporting standards of recently published observational studies that used mediation analysis to understand the mechanism of health exposures. We searched for studies published between June 2017 and June 2019 indexed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Two reviewers screened articles and selected a random sample of 50 eligible studies for inclusion. We included studies across 13 healthcare fields and ten different health conditions. Most studies (74%) collected data on healthy individuals to assess their risk of developing a health disorder. Psychosocial and behavioural factors (self-control, self-esteem, alcohol consumption, pain) were the most prevalent exposures (n = 30, 60%), outcomes (n = 23, 46%) and mediators (n = 29, 58%). Most studies used a cross-sectional design (64%, n = 32), and a few studies reported sample size calculations (4%, n = 8). In 20% (n = 10) of the studies, adjustment for confounders was reported. Only 10% (n = 5) of studies reported the assumptions underlying the mediation analysis, and 14% (n = 7) of studies conducted some sensitivity analysis to assess the degree which unmeasured confounders would affect the estimate of the mediation effect. Mediation analysis is a common method used to investigate mechanisms in prevention research. The reporting of mediation analysis in observational studies is incomplete and may impact reproducibility, evidence synthesis and implementation.

Reporting characteristics of journal infographics: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Infographics have become an increasingly popular method to present research findings and increase the attention research receives. As many scientific journals now use infographics to boost the visibility and uptake of the research they publish, infographics have become an important tool for medical education. It is unknown whether such infographics convey the key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of the data such as an adequate description of the study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes; methodological limitations; and numerical estimates of benefits and harms. This study described whether infographics published in peer-reviewed health and medical research journals contain key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of clinical research. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified peer-reviewed journals listed in the top quintile of 35 unique fields of medicine and health research listed in the Journal Citation Reports database. Two researchers screened journals for the presence of infographics. We defined an infographic as a graphical visual representation of research findings. We extracted data from a sample of two of the most recent infographics from each journal. Outcomes were the proportion of infographics that reported key characteristics such as study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes, benefits, harms, effect estimates with measures of precision, between-group differences and conflicts of interest; acknowledged risk of bias, certainty of evidence and study limitations; and based their conclusions on the study's primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 129 infographics from 69 journals. Most infographics described the population (81%), intervention (96%), comparator (91%) and outcomes (94%), but fewer contained enough information on the population (26%), intervention (45%), comparator (20%) and outcomes (55%) for those components of the study to be understood without referring to the main paper. Risk of bias was acknowledged in only 2% of infographics, and none of the 69 studies that had declared a conflict of interest disclosed it in the infographics. CONCLUSIONS: Most infographics do not report sufficient information to allow readers to interpret study findings, including the study characteristics, results, and sources of bias. Our results can inform initiatives to improve the quality of the information presented in infographics.

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point. Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: The AGReMA Statement.

Importance: Mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies can generate evidence about the mechanisms by which interventions and exposures may influence health outcomes. Publications of mediation analyses are increasing, but the quality of their reporting is suboptimal. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based guidance for the reporting of mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies (A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses; AGReMA). Design, Setting, and Participants: The AGReMA statement was developed using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines. The guideline development process included (1) an overview of systematic reviews to assess the need for a reporting guideline; (2) review of systematic reviews of relevant evidence on reporting mediation analyses; (3) conducting a Delphi survey with panel members that included methodologists, statisticians, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, psychologists, applied clinical researchers, clinicians, implementation scientists, evidence synthesis experts, representatives from the EQUATOR Network, and journal editors (n = 19; June-November 2019); (4) having a consensus meeting (n = 15; April 28-29, 2020); and (5) conducting a 4-week external review and pilot test that included methodologists and potential users of AGReMA (n = 21; November 2020). Results: A previously reported overview of 54 systematic reviews of mediation studies demonstrated the need for a reporting guideline. Thirty-three potential reporting items were identified from 3 systematic reviews of mediation studies. Over 3 rounds, the Delphi panelists ranked the importance of these items, provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritization, and suggested new items for consideration. All items were reviewed during a 2-day consensus meeting and participants agreed on a 25-item AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are the primary focus and a 9-item short-form AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are a secondary focus. These checklists were externally reviewed and pilot tested by 21 expert methodologists and potential users, which led to minor adjustments and consolidation of the checklists. Conclusions and Relevance: The AGReMA statement provides recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could facilitate peer review and help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.

Development of A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses (AGReMA).

BACKGROUND: There are a growing number of studies using mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures. Recent work has shown that the reporting of these studies is heterogenous and incomplete. This problem stifles clinical application, reproducibility, and evidence synthesis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop a guideline for reporting studies of mediation analyses (AGReMA). METHODS/DESIGN: AGReMA will be developed over five overlapping stages. Stage one will comprise a systematic review to examine relevant evidence on the quality of reporting in published studies that use mediation analysis. In the second stage we will consult a group of methodologists and applied researchers by using a Delphi process to identify items that should be considered for inclusion in AGReMA. The third stage will involve a consensus meeting to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in AGReMA. The fourth stage will involve the production of AGReMA and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. In the final stage we will disseminate the AGReMA statement via journals, conferences, and professional meetings across multiple disciplines. DISCUSSION: The development and implementation of AGReMA will improve the standardization, transparency, and completeness in the reporting of studies that use mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures.

Barriers and Enablers to Using Intervention Reporting Guidelines in Sports and Exercise Medicine Trials: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators for using intervention reporting guidelines (CERT and TIDieR) from authors of randomized controlled trials in sports and exercise medicine journals. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: We recruited authors of randomized controlled trials published from June 2, 2018, to June 2, 2022, in the 10 leading sports and exercise medicine journals. We invited authors of eligible trials to complete an online survey that included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions, as well as open-ended free-text questions on the barriers and facilitators to using intervention reporting guidelines. We used descriptive analysis to summarize the quantitative data and a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators from the qualitative data. We conducted a subgroup analysis to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between early-mid career researchers and senior researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-four participants from 21 countries completed the survey (44 early-mid-career researchers, 40 senior researchers). We identified 8 themes relating to using intervention reporting guidelines. Themes classified as barriers related to publication constraints (word count limits), low awareness of intervention reporting guidelines, unclear benefits of the guidelines, and the increased burden imposed upon the researcher. Themes classified as facilitators related to journal requirements for guidelines use, the desire to accurately describe interventions, recommendations from other researchers, and reporting guideline use indicating "quality" of work. CONCLUSION: Barriers to using intervention reporting guidelines are largely modifiable and could be addressed by journals mandating their use, and educational initiatives. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-11. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12110.

Development of recommendations for a minimum dataset for Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research.

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the 'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the 'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes.

Treatment Effect Modifiers for Return-to-Work in Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Investigating how individual characteristics modify treatment effects can improve understanding, interpretation, and translation of trial findings. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify treatment effect modifiers of the MI-NAV trial, a 3 arm, parallel randomized controlled trial which compared motivational interviewing and stratified vocational advice intervention in addition to usual case management (UC), to UC alone. This study included (n = 514) participants with musculoskeletal disorders on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for at least 7 consecutive weeks with the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Sickness absence days was the primary outcome, measured from baseline assessment date until the 6-month follow-up. Potential treatment effect modifiers, identified a priori and informed by expert consultation and literature, were evaluated using linear regression models and statistical interaction tests. For motivational interviewing versus UC, age (mean difference [MD] -.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to .2; P = .13) and self-perceived health status (MD -.3, 95% CI -.7 to .1; P = .19) were identified as potential effect modifiers (P ≤ .2). For stratified vocational advice intervention versus UC, analgesic medication use (MD -26.2, 95% CI -45.7 to -6.7; P = .009) was identified as a treatment effect modifier (P ≤ .05). These findings may assist in more targeted treatment adaptation and translation as well as the planning of future clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the MI-NAV trial found that analgesic medication use, age, and self-perceived health may modify the effect of 2 vocational interventions on reducing sickness absence in people with musculoskeletal disorders.