Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents. OBJECTIVES: Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing overuse of pathology test requesting by Australian general practitioners: protocol for a factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Consistent evidence shows pathology services are overused worldwide and that about one-third of testing is unnecessary. Audit and feedback (AF) is effective for improving care but few trials evaluating AF to reduce pathology test requesting in primary care have been conducted. The aim of this trial is to estimate the effectiveness of AF for reducing requests for commonly overused pathology test combinations by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs) compared with no intervention control. A secondary aim is to evaluate which forms of AF are most effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in Australian general practice. It uses routinely collected Medicare Benefits Schedule data to identify the study population, apply eligibility criteria, generate the interventions and analyse outcomes. On 12 May 2022, all eligible GPs were simultaneously randomised to either no intervention control or to one of eight intervention groups. GPs allocated to an intervention group received individualised AF on their rate of requesting of pathology test combinations compared with their GP peers. Three separate elements of the AF intervention will be evaluated when outcome data become available on 11 August 2023: (1) invitation to participate in continuing professional development-accredited education on appropriate pathology requesting, (2) provision of cost information on pathology test combinations and (3) format of feedback. The primary outcome is the overall rate of requesting of any of the displayed combinations of pathology tests of GPs over 6 months following intervention delivery. With 3371 clusters, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate over 95% power to detect a difference of 4.4 requests in the mean rate of pathology test combination requests between the control and intervention groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (#JH03507; approved 30 November 2021). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Reporting will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000566730.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Improving adherence to acute low back pain guideline recommendations with chiropractors and physiotherapists: the ALIGN cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors' and physiotherapists' adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective. METHODS: Physiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months). RESULTS: A total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI - 0.48, 1.21, scale 0-24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74). CONCLUSIONS: Intervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. RESULTS: From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. CONCLUSION: Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140784.

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

Exercise and mobilisation interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Non-surgical treatment, including exercises and mobilisation, has been offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms arising from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the effectiveness and duration of benefit from exercises and mobilisation for this condition remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of exercise and mobilisation interventions compared with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialised Register (10 January 2012), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to January 2012), and AMED (January 1985 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing exercise or mobilisation interventions with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed searches and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes of the review. We collected data on adverse events from included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies randomising 741 participants with CTS were included in the review. Two compared a mobilisation regimen to a no treatment control, three compared one mobilisation intervention (for example carpal bone mobilisation) to another (for example soft tissue mobilisation), nine compared nerve mobilisation delivered as part of a multi-component intervention to another non-surgical intervention (for example splint or therapeutic ultrasound), and three compared a mobilisation intervention other than nerve mobilisation (for example yoga or chiropractic treatment) to another non-surgical intervention. The risk of bias of the included studies was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only three explicitly reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed, and four reporting blinding of participants. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions delivered, outcomes measured and timing of outcome assessment, therefore, we were unable to pool results across studies. Only four studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared to baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). However, of these, only three fully reported outcome data sufficient for inclusion in the review. One very low quality trial with 14 participants found that all participants receiving either neurodynamic mobilisation or carpal bone mobilisation and none in the no treatment group reported overall improvement (RR 15.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 220.92), though the precision of this effect estimate is very low. One low quality trial with 22 participants found that the chance of being 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with treatment was 24% higher for participants receiving instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilisation compared to standard soft tissue mobilisation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.75), though participants were not blinded and it was unclear if the allocation sequence was concealed. Another very low-quality trial with 26 participants found that more CTS-affected wrists receiving nerve gliding exercises plus splint plus activity modification had no pathologic finding on median and ulnar nerve distal sensory latency assessment at the end of treatment than wrists receiving splint plus activity modification alone (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.30). However, a unit of analysis error occurred in this trial, as the correlation between wrists in participants with bilateral CTS was not accounted for. Only two studies measured adverse effects, so more data are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of exercise and mobilisation interventions can be made. In general, the results of secondary outcomes of the review (short- and long-term improvement in CTS symptoms, functional ability, health-related quality of life, neurophysiologic parameters, and the need for surgery) for most comparisons had 95% CIs which incorporated effects in either direction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited and very low quality evidence of benefit for all of a diverse collection of exercise and mobilisation interventions for CTS. People with CTS who indicate a preference for exercise or mobilisation interventions should be informed of the limited evidence of effectiveness and safety of this intervention by their treatment provider. Until more high quality randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness and safety of various exercise and mobilisation interventions compared to other non-surgical interventions are undertaken, the decision to provide this type of non-surgical intervention to people with CTS should be based on the clinician's expertise in being able to deliver these treatments and patient's preferences.