Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic neck pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To date, no consensus exists as to whether one exercise type is more effective than another in chronic neck pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews aimed to summarize the literature on the effect of various exercise types used in chronic neck pain and to assess the certainty of the evidence. METHODS: We searched the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (Core Collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years with chronic neck pain lasting ≥ 12 weeks which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. The included reviews were grouped into motor control exercise (MCE), Pilates exercises, resistance training, traditional Chinese exercise (TCE), and yoga. Study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2 and the level of certainty for the effects of the exercise through GRADE. A narrative analysis of the results was performed and in addition, meta-analyses when feasible. RESULTS: Our database search resulted in 1,794 systematic reviews. We included 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses including 17,321 participants (overlap not accounted for). The quality of the included reviews ranged from critically low to low (n = 13) to moderate to high (n = 12). We found low to high certainty of evidence that MCE, Pilates exercises, resistance training, TCE, and yoga have short-term positive effects on pain and that all exercise types except resistance training, show positive effects on disability compared to non-exercise controls. We found low to moderate certainty of evidence for conflicting results on pain and disability when the exercise types were compared to other exercise interventions in the short-term as well as in intermediate/long-term apart for yoga, as no long-term results were available. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings show low to high certainty of evidence for positive effects on pain and disability of the various exercise types used in chronic neck pain compared to non-exercise interventions, at least in the short-term. Based on our results, no optimal exercise intervention for patients with chronic neck pain can be recommended, since no large differences between the exercise types were shown here. Because the quality of the included systematic reviews varied greatly, future systematic reviews need to increase their methodological quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42022336014.

Systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis.

Through this systematic literature review, we assembled evidence to inform the EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). We screened articles published between January 2000 and June 2021. Studies selected for data extraction (118 for SLE and 92 for SSc) were thematically categorised by the character of their intervention. Of 208 articles included, 51 were classified as robust in critical appraisal. Physical activity was the most studied management strategy and was found to be efficacious in both diseases. Patient education and self-management also constituted widely studied topics. Many studies on SLE found psychological interventions to improve quality of life. Studies on SSc found phototherapy and laser treatment to improve cutaneous disease manifestations. In summary, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc encompasses a wide range of interventions, which can be combined and provided either with or without adjunct pharmacological treatment but should not aim to substitute the latter when this is deemed required. While some management strategies i.e., physical exercise and patient education, are already established in current clinical practice in several centres, others e.g., phototherapy and laser treatment, show both feasibility and efficacy, yet require testing in more rigorous trials than those hitherto conducted.

First and final year physiotherapy students' expectations of their future profession.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Students' expectations of their future profession may have an impact on their professional development. This study aimed to describe first and final year physiotherapy students' expectations of their future profession. METHODS: A total of 96 respondents participated; 45 students in their first semester 2006, and 51 students in their final semester 2014. Individual written reflections were analyzed separately for each semester, using qualitative manifest inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in six categories from each semester. The categories from the first semester were: 1) Professional and person-centered; 2) Promote health in a holistic way; 3) Competence makes the patient and therapist feel confident; 4) Focus on education and behavioral change; 5) Confirmed as a role model; and 6) The impact of previous experiences and an unknown situation. The categories from the final semester were: 1) Interaction and learning; 2) Confidence by competence; 3) Value the work environment and knowledge exchange; 4) Personal goals and strategies; 5) Specialist or generalist work; and 6) Work with public health in a global world. CONCLUSIONS: In the first semester, students described different work approaches, while students in the last semester described how approaches were to be used. Furthermore, students in their first semester referred more to previous experiences, while students in their final semester developed strategies to achieve their professional goals. These findings might contribute to guide students' in their continuous professional development based on their experiences and expectations.

Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic low back pain - a systematic review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: In chronic LBP (CLBP), guideline-endorsed treatment is to stay active, return to normal activity, and to exercise. Several reviews on various exercise types used in CLBP have been published. We aimed to identify systematic reviews of common exercise types used in CLBP, to appraise their quality, and to summarize and compare their effect on pain and disability. METHODS: We searched the databases OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and WEB OF SCIENCE (Core collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years of age suffering from chronic or recurrent LBP for a period of at least 12 weeks, which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. All searches were conducted without language restriction. The search was performed up until 2022-01-26. The included reviews were grouped into nine exercise types: aerobic training, aquatic exercises, motor control exercises (MCE), resistance training, Pilates, sling exercises, traditional Chinese exercises (TCE), walking, and yoga. The study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. For each exercise type, a narrative analysis was performed, and the level of evidence for the effects of exercise was assessed through GRADE. RESULTS: Our database search resulted in 3,475 systematic reviews. Out of the 253 full texts that were screened, we included 45 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included reviews ranged from high to critically low. Due to large heterogeneity, no meta-analyses were performed. We found low-to-moderate evidence of mainly short-term and small beneficial effects on pain and disability for MCE, Pilates, resistance training, TCE, and yoga compared to no or minimal intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the effect of various exercise types used in CLBP on pain and disability varies with no major difference between exercise types. Many of the included systematic reviews were of low-to-moderate quality and based on randomized controlled trials with high risk of bias. The conflicting results seen, undermine the certainty of the results leading to very-low-to-moderate quality of evidence for our results. Future systematic reviews should be of higher quality to minimize waste of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: Reg no 190409 Registration date 01AUG 2020.