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

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

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

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.

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

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

A guide for a student-led doctoral-level qualitative methods short course in epidemiology: faculty and student perspectives.

Qualitative research and mixed methods are core competencies for epidemiologists. In response to the shortage of guidance on graduate course development, we wrote a course development guide aimed at faculty and students designing similar courses in epidemiology curricula. The guide combines established educational theory with faculty and student experiences from a recent introductory course for epidemiology and biostatistics doctoral students at the University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. We propose a student-centred course with inverse classroom teaching and practice exercises with faculty input. Integration of student input during the course development process helps align the course syllabus with student needs. The proposed course comprises six sessions that cover learning outcomes in comprehension, knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Following an introductory session, the students engage in face-to-face interviews, focus group interviews, observational methods, analysis and how qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in mixed methods. Furthermore, the course covers interviewer safety, research ethics, quality in qualitative research and a practice session focused on the use of interview hardware, including video and audio recorders. The student-led teaching characteristic of the course allows for an immersive and reflective teaching-learning environment. After implementation of the course and learning from faculty and student perspectives, we propose these additional foci: a student project to apply learned knowledge to a case study; integration in mixed-methods; and providing faculty a larger space to cover theory and field anecdotes.

Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol-both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes-included to blind the study objective from participants-are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023-00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain-the SALuBRITY trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05778396.

Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility. BACKGROUND: Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment. METHODS: On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis. RESULTS: 24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

Comparative Efficacy of Conservative Surgery vs Minor Amputation for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical intervention for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). Conservative surgery-amputation-free resection of infected bone and soft tissues-is gaining traction as an alternative to minor amputation. Our primary objective was to explore the comparative effectiveness of conservative surgery and minor amputations in clinical failure risk 1 year after index intervention. We also aimed to explore microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year study period. METHODS: Retrospective, single-center chart review of DFO patients undergoing either conservative surgery or minor amputation. We used multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates to explore the effect of surgical intervention on clinical failure (recurrent diabetic foot infection at surgical site within 1 year after index operation), microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year follow-up period. RESULTS: 651 patients were included (conservative surgery, n = 121; minor amputation, n = 530). Clinical failure occurred in 34 (28%) patients in the conservative surgery group, and in 111 (21%) of the minor amputation group at 1 year (P = .09). After controlling for potential confounders, we found no association between conservative surgery and clinical failure at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1). We found no between-group differences in microbiological recurrence at 1 year (conservative surgery: 8 [6.6%]; minor amputation: 33 [6.2%]; P = .25; adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.6). Over the 10-year period, the conservative group underwent significantly more revision surgeries (conservative surgery: 85 [70.2%]; minor amputation: 252 [47.5%]; P < .01; adjusted HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8). CONCLUSION: We found that with comorbidity-based patient selection, conservative surgery in the treatment of DFO was associated with the same rates of clinical failure and microbiological recurrence at 1 year, but with significantly more revision surgeries during follow-up, compared with minor amputations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative effectiveness study.

Certainty of the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Modelled Prevalence Estimates for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Objectives: To describe and assess the risk of bias of the primary input studies that underpinned the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019 modelled prevalence estimates of low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and knee osteoarthritis (OA), from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland. To evaluate the certainty of the GBD modelled prevalence evidence. Methods: Primary studies were identified using the GBD Data Input Sources Tool and their risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool. We rated the certainty of modelled prevalence estimates based on the GRADE Guidelines 30-the GRADE approach for modelled evidence. Results: Seventy-two primary studies (LBP: 67, NP: 2, knee OA: 3) underpinned the GBD estimates. Most studies had limited representativeness of their study populations, used suboptimal case definitions and applied assessment instruments with unknown psychometric properties. The certainty of modelled prevalence estimates was low, mainly due to risk of bias and indirectness. Conclusion: Beyond the risk of bias of primary input studies for LBP, NP, and knee OA in GBD 2019, the certainty of country-specific modelled prevalence estimates still have room for improvement.