Exercises for the prevention of non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of exercise alone or exercise plus education compared with inactive control or education alone to prevent non-specific LBP.

Implementation of an online pain science education for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Brazilian public health system: protocol for a hybrid type III randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical practice guidelines recommend pain education as the first-line option for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain, there is a lack of pain education programmes in healthcare. Thus, digital health programmes can be an effective tool for implementing pain education strategies for public health. This trial will aim to analyse the implementation and effectiveness outcomes of three online pain science education strategies in the Brazilian public health system (SUS) for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. We will include adult individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, recruited from primary healthcare in the city of Guarapuava, Brazil. Individuals will be randomised to three implementation groups receiving a pain science education intervention (EducaDor) but delivered in different modalities: group 1) synchronous online; group 2) asynchronous videos; and group 3) interactive e-book only. Implementation outcomes will include acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and costs. We will also assess effectiveness outcomes, such as pain, function, quality of life, sleep, self-efficacy, and adverse effects. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the SUS and societal perspectives. The evaluations will be done at baseline, post-intervention (10 weeks), and 6 months. DISCUSSION: This study will develop and implement a collaborative intervention model involving primary healthcare professionals, secondary-level healthcare providers, and patients to enhance self-management of chronic pain. In addition to promoting better pain management, this study will also contribute to the field of implementation science in public health by generating important insights and recommendations for future interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05302180; 03/29/2022).

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice. METHODS: In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. RESULTS: We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies. CONCLUSION: An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research. REGISTER: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

The efficacy and safety of paracetamol for pain relief: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 - 30 April 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0-10-point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, -0.8 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension-type headache (pain-free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.4). CONCLUSIONS: For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42015029282 (prospective).

Interventions Targeting Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Pain: An Evidence Synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a risk factor for chronic pain conditions. Epidemiological evidence suggests that smoking cessation may be an important treatment target in people with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic pain, compared with any control comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and physical function. Secondary outcomes were smoking status, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria and the quality of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 3845 records and identified two trials for inclusion (total n = 99 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no effect of smoking cessation programs on pain and very low-quality evidence of no effect on function at short-term follow-up. There was conflicting evidence on the effect of smoking cessation interventions for changing the smoking status and number of cigarettes consumed per day. There was no effect on depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate clinically important effects of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. There is a need for high-quality trials in this area. IMPLICATIONS: Our review highlights an important evidence gap. We found only two studies investigating smoking cessation programs for chronic pain conditions providing very low- to low-quality evidence.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Allocation Concealment and Intention-To-Treat Analysis Do Not Influence the Treatment Effects of Physical Therapy Interventions in Low Back Pain Trials: a Meta-epidemiologic Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if allocation concealment and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis influence the treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain (LBP) trials. DATA SOURCES: We searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and CINAHL up to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included LBP trials that compared physical therapy interventions to placebo or no intervention or minimal intervention with pain or disability outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about allocation concealment and ITT analysis was extracted from PEDro and pain and disability outcomes converted to a 0-100 scale. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of these methodological features of interest on treatment effects. Other covariates included in the meta-regression were sample size and sequence generation. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 128 eligible trials (pooled N=20,555 participants). A total of 44.5% of the trials achieved allocation concealment, while 32% performed ITT analysis. Meta regression analyses showed no influence of allocation concealment on treatment effects for pain (regression coefficient 0.009; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.91 to 2.91) and disability (regression coefficient 1.13; 95% CI -1.35 to 3.62), and no influence of ITT analysis for pain (regression coefficient 1.38; 95% CI -1.73 to 4.50) or disability (regression coefficient 1.27; 95% CI -1.39 to 3.64). For the other covariates, there was also no clinically significant influence on the treatment effects. CONCLUSION: There is no influence of allocation concealment or ITT analysis on treatment effects of physical therapy interventions for pain and disability in LBP trials.

Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review.

AIMS: To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality. RESULTS: We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates.

The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?

PURPOSE: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is one of the most recommended questionnaires to assess disability. Some previous studies support the assumption that the RMDQ is a unidimensional measure; however, recent studies have suggested that this measure has more than one domain and should be considered as a multidimensional scale. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the structure of the RMDQ in a large sample of patients with low back pain using two different statistical approaches. METHODS: We analysed existing datasets from previous clinical studies. We assessed unidimensionality using Rasch analysis of item fit statistics and through principle component analysis of residuals. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesis of a 3-factor solution. RESULTS: We included data from 2826 patients with non-specific low back pain. The average age of all participants included was 46.4 years, and half of the participants were women (50.1%). The Rasch analysis model showed that the RMDQ is unidimensional, with only two items demonstrating slight excessive positive outfit. Results from the CFA suggested poor fit to the data of a 3-factor solution. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that the RMDQ should still be used as a unidimensional scale for measuring disability as the only construct.

Paracetamol for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation). MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

Pilates for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.

Are we missing the opioid consumption in low- and middle-income countries?

OBJECTIVES: The rise in opioid prescriptions with a parallel increase in opioid use disorders remains a significant challenge in some developed countries (opioid epidemic). However, little is known about opioid consumption in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this short report, we aim to discuss the increase in opioid consumption in LMICs by providing an update on the opioid perspective in Brazil. METHODS: We analyzed opioid sales on the publicly available Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) database from 2015 to 2020. RESULTS: In Brazil, opioid sales increased 34.8 %, from 8,839,029 prescriptions in 2015 to 11,913,823 prescriptions in 2020, this represents an increase from 44 to 56 prescriptions for every 1,000 inhabitants. Codeine phosphate combined with paracetamol and tramadol hydrochloride were the most common opioids prescribed with an increase each year. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that opioid prescriptions are rising in Brazil in a 5 years period. Brazil may have a unique opportunity to learn from other countries and develop consistent policies and guidelines to better educate patients and prescribers and to prevent an opioid crisis.

Evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological musculoskeletal pain management in children and adolescents: A methodological analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies investigating the methodological and report quality of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain management among children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and three other databases. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed each article according to the predetermined selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the AMSTAR 2 checklist and the quality of reporting, using PRISMA checklist. Descriptive analysis was used to summarise the characteristics of all included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2, PRISMA checklist and the overall confidence in the results were described. RESULTS: We included 17 systematic reviews of conservative non-pharmacological pain management for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Of the 17 systematic reviews included, nine (53%) were rated as "critically low", seven (41%) were rated as "low", and one (6%) was rated as "high" methodological quality by AMSTAR-2. The reporting quality by items from PRISMA range from 17.6% (95% CI 6.2 to 41) to 100% (95% CI 81.6 to 100). CONCLUSION: This systematic review of physical interventions in children and adolescents showed overall 'very low' to 'high' methodological quality and usually poor reporting quality.

Effect of traditional rehabilitation programme versus telerehabilitation in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation has become increasingly popular since the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak. However, studies are needed to understand the effects of remote delivery of spine treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To verify and compare the effects of traditional rehabilitation programmes (in-person) and telerehabilitation (online) on the progression of scoliotic curvature in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to verify the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility among patients and physiotherapists regarding both treatments. METHODS: This is a cohort study (prospective analysis of 2 intervention groups: telerehabilitation (online) and traditional rehabilitation (in-person). A total of 66 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis were included. Recruitment was conducted through the Clinical Center in Scoliosis Care (January-December 2020). Participants were divided into 2 intervention groups: telerehabilitation (online) (n = 33) and traditional rehabilitation programme (in-person) (n = 33). Both groups also were supplied with a spinal orthopaedic brace. Scoliosis was confirmed by a spine X-ray examination (Cobb angle). Radiographic parameters measured were: Cobb angles (thoracic and lumbar). The method of Nash and Moe (thoracic and lumbar) was also evaluated based on the relationship between the vertebral pedicles and the centre of the vertebral body in the X-rays. Assessments were performed at baseline (T0) and after 6 months of the intervention protocol (T6). Patient and physiotherapist reports were evaluated on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the interventions. RESULTS: Adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis showed a significant decrease in the Cobb angle (main scoliotic curvature), with a 4.9° for the traditional rehabilitation programme and 2.4° for the telerehabilitation. Thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles did not show significant changes after the intervention in both groups or between groups. Thoracic and lumbar Nash and Moe scores scores also did not show significant differences after 6 months of in-person or telerehabilitation intervention, or between groups. The intervention by telerehabilitation was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for patients and physiotherapists. CONCLUSION: Use of the rehabilitation programme for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis, delivered via telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic, was encouraging for future applications due to the improved effect on reducing the Cobb angle, preventing progression of scoliosis. In addition, telerehabilitation showed good acceptability among patients and physiotherapists. Traditional rehabilitation programmes (in-person) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis also showed a reduction in the Cobb angle.

Use of cupping therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: A cross-sectional study on the profile, training, and practice of Brazilian physical therapists.

INTRODUCTION: Cupping therapy is a widely used technique in Brazilian physical therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is limited scientific evidence to support its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the profile, training, clinical practice, and scientific updates of Brazilian Physical Therapists who use cupping therapy as a therapeutic resource for musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted through an online questionnaire, including 646 Physical Therapists who use cupping therapy in their practice. All data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Cupping therapy is a technique that has been widely adopted in clinical practice by Physical Therapists, particularly among young, female professionals who have recently graduated from private universities. The primary reason for interest in this technique among these Physical Therapists is the high demand from patients. Additionally, it is often used in conjunction with other manual therapeutic techniques. They identified easy access, low cost, and ease of use as the key factors that make cupping therapy an attractive option. However, a lack of high-quality scientific evidence, as described in the literature, was identified as a major barrier to its use. CONCLUSION: The Physical Therapists included in this study use cupping therapy in their clinical practice, relying heavily on their own experience and the preferences of their patients, rather than utilizing the third pillar of evidence-based practice, which is to rely on the best available evidence. This study suggests that these Physical Therapists are currently implementing a technique without current scientific recommendations for its use in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders.