Systematic Review Procedures for the World Health Organization (WHO) Evidence Syntheses on Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education/Advice, Structured Exercise Programs, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and Needling Therapies for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults.

As commissioned by the WHO, we updated and expanded the scope of four systematic reviews to inform its (in development) clinical practice guideline for the management of CPLBP in adults, including older adults. Methodological details and results of each review are described in the respective articles in this series. In the last article of this series, we discuss methodological considerations, clinical implications and recommendations for future research.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Imaging use for low back pain by Ontario primary care clinicians: protocol for a mixed methods study - the Back ON study.

BACKGROUND: At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings. METHODS: The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12 months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients. DISCUSSION: This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging.

A Qualitative Study of Doctors of Chiropractic in a Nova Scotian Practice-based Research Network: Barriers and Facilitators to the Screening and Management of Psychosocial Factors for Patients With Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess chiropractors' awareness of clinical practice guidelines for low back pain and to identify barriers and facilitators to the screening and management of psychosocial factors in patients with low back pain. METHODS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with 10 Nova Scotian chiropractors who were members of a practice-based research network. RESULTS: The participants correctly identified what the guidelines generally recommend and described the value of psychosocial factors; however, none of the participants could name specific clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. We identified 6 themes related to barriers and facilitators for chiropractors screening and managing psychosocial factors. The themes revolved around the participants' desire to fulfill patients' anatomy-focused treatment expectations and a perceived lack of training for managing psychosocial factors. Participants had concerns about going beyond the chiropractic scope of practice, and they perceived a lack of practical psychosocial screening and management resources. Social factors, such as the influence of other health care practitioners, were reported as both barriers and facilitators to screening and managing psychosocial factors. CONCLUSIONS: The participants in this study reported that they mostly treated with an anatomical and biomechanical focus and that they did not always address psychosocial factors identified in their patients with low back pain. Although these findings are limited to Nova Scotian chiropractors, the barriers identified appeared to be potentially modifiable and could be considered in other groups. Low-cost interventions, such as continuing education using evidence-informed behavior change techniques, could be considered to address these barriers.

Research priorities of the Canadian chiropractic profession: a consensus study using a modified Delphi technique.

Background: Research funds are limited and a healthcare profession that supports research activity should establish research priority areas. The study objective was to identify research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession, and for stakeholders in the chiropractic profession to rank these in order of importance. Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi consensus study between August 2015 and May 2017 to determine the views of Canadian chiropractic organisations (e.g. Canadian Chiropractic Association; provincial associations) and stakeholder groups (e.g. chiropractic educational institutions; researchers). Participants completed three online Delphi survey rounds. In Round 1, participants suggested research areas within four broad research themes: 1) Basic science; 2) Clinical; 3) Health services; and 4) Population health. In Round 2, researchers created sub-themes by categorising the areas suggested in Round 1, and participants judged the importance of the research sub-themes. We defined consensus as at least 70% of participants agreeing that a research area was "essential" or "very important". In Round 3, results from Round 2 were presented to the participants to re-evaluate the importance of sub-themes. Finally, participants completed an online pairwise ranking activity to determine the rank order of the list of important research sub-themes. Results: Fifty-seven participants, of 85 people invited, completed Round 1 (response rate 67%). Fifty-six participants completed Round 2, 55 completed Round 3, and 53 completed the ranking activity. After three Delphi rounds and the pairwise ranking activity was completed, the ranked list of research sub-themes considered important were: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services; 4) Effects of chiropractic care; 5) Safety/side effects of chiropractic care; 6) Chiropractic care for older adults; 7) Neurophysiological mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy; 8) General mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Conclusions: This project identified research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession. The top three priority areas were all in the area of health services research: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services.

Informing a research agenda for the Canadian chiropractic profession.

Our research group recently published a Delphi study that identified Canadian chiropractic profession research priority areas. At the same time, the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation (CCRF) was developing their own research priority areas. In this commentary, we discuss the results of the Delphi study, compare and contrast these results to the research priorities of the CCRF, and report new data from a survey about where members of the chiropractic profession think that available research funding should be spent. Ongoing dialogue is needed with all Canadian chiropractic stakeholders to turn these research priorities into action.

Notre groupe de recherche a publié les résultats d'une étude Delphi visant à connaître les priorités de recherche dans le domaine canadien de la chiropratique. Parallèlement, la Fondation canadienne pour la recherche pour la recherche en chiropratique (CCRF) a établi ses propres priorités. Dans les présents commentaires, nous examinerons les résultats de l'étude Delphi, nous les comparerons aux priorités de recherche établis par la CCRF et nous présenterons les résultats d'un sondage mené auprès de membres de la profession pour connaître leurs opinions sur la façon dont les fonds de recherche devraient servir. Un dialogue continu s'impose entre tous les intervenants du domaine de la chiropratique au Canada pour que ces priorités de recherche se traduisent en mesures concrètes.

Psychological interventions in managing postoperative pain in children: a systematic review.

Pediatric surgeries are common and painful for children. Postoperative pain is commonly managed with analgesics; however, pain is often still problematic. Despite evidence for psychological interventions for procedural pain, there is currently no evidence synthesis for psychological interventions in managing postoperative pain in children. The purpose of this review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for postoperative pain in youth. Psychological interventions included Preparation/education, distraction/imagery, and mixed. Four databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, and Certified Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched to July 2015 for published articles and dissertations. We screened 1401 citations and included 20 studies of youth aged 2 to 18 years undergoing surgery. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan 5.3. Fourteen studies (1096 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10 metric). Results indicated that psychological interventions as a whole were effective in reducing children's self-reported pain in the short term (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI = -0.76 to -0.18). Subgroup analysis indicated that distraction/imagery interventions were effective in reducing self-reported pain in the short term (24 hours, SMD = -0.63, 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.23), whereas preparation/education interventions were not effective (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.61 to 0.08). Data on the effects of interventions on longer term pain outcomes were limited. Psychological interventions may be effective in reducing short-term postoperative pain intensity in children, as well as longer term pain and other outcomes (eg, adverse events) require further study.

Evaluation of chiropractic management of pediatric patients with low back pain: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recent epidemiologic studies have estimated that the lifetime prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in children is approximately 50%, with almost 15% of children experiencing frequent or continual pain. A literature search revealed no published studies addressing conservative treatment of childhood LBP. OBJECTIVE: To describe chiropractic management of LBP in patients between the ages of 4 and 18 years, as well as outcomes and factors associated with the outcomes. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of consecutive pediatric patients with LBP seeing randomly selected chiropractors within the cities of Calgary, Alberta, and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Follow-up data collection included the type and extent of treatment rendered and its outcome, which was measured with a 5-point subjective rating scale and a self-report pediatric visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Fifteen chiropractors provided data on 54 consecutive pediatric patients with LBP. The average age of the patients was 13.1 years, 57% were male, 61% were acute, with 47% attributing onset to a traumatic event (most commonly sports-related); 24% reported an episode duration of greater than 3 months. Almost 90% of cases presented with uncomplicated mechanical LBP, most frequently diagnosed as lumbar facet dysfunction or subluxation. Patients were managed with manipulation, with a minority (7.7%) receiving some form of active management. "Important" improvement was seen in 62% and 87% on the visual analogue and subjective scales, respectively, within a 6-week course of management (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis). Patients with chronic LBP were less likely to respond within the median number of treatments (relative risk = 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients responded favorably to chiropractic management, and there were no reported complications. Future investigations should establish the natural history and compare chiropractic management with other forms of treatment to gain knowledge about the effectiveness of chiropractic in managing pediatric LBP.