The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of common shoulder injuries in sport: grading the evidence - a statement paper commissioned by the Danish Society of Sports Physical Therapy (DSSF).

This statement paper summarises and appraises the evidence on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of common shoulder injuries in sports. We systematically searched Medline and Embase. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool was applied to evaluate the overall quality of evidence.For diagnosis, we included 19 clinical tests from mixed populations. Tests for anterior instability, biceps-labrum complex injuries and full subscapularis rupture had high diagnostic accuracy (low to moderate quality of evidence).For prevention, the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, the Shoulder Control, the FIFA 11+ shoulder injury prevention programmes, and a baseball-specific programme (range of motion, stretching, dynamic stability and strengthening exercises) showed moderate to large effect size in reducing the risk of shoulder injury compared with no intervention (very low to moderate quality of evidence).For treatment, a rehabilitation programme including stretching, ice packs, electrotherapy and compression, and strengthening exercises showed a large effect size in reducing pain and disability compared with no intervention in athletes with subacromial impingement syndrome (very low to moderate quality of evidence). For the treatment of supraspinatus tendinopathy, hyperthermia treatment (heating the skin to 38°C-40°C) resulted in large effect size in reducing pain and disability compared with ultrasound or pendular swinging and stretching exercises (moderate quality of evidence). Strengthening exercise alone or in combination with stretching exercises promoted a large effect in reducing shoulder pain (cohort studies, no comparators) (very low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for most estimates was low to moderate, indicating that future high-quality research may alter our recommendations for clinical practice.

Recruitment and retention rates in randomised controlled trials of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To quantify recruitment, retention and differential retention rates and associated trial, participant and intervention characteristics in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL from 1990 to April 20, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs including people with multimorbidity comparing exercise therapy with a non-exposed comparator group reporting at least one of the following outcomes: physical function, health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or anxiety symptoms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Recruitment rates (proportion of people randomised/proportion of people eligible), retention rates (proportion of people providing the outcomes of interest/proportion randomised) and differential retention rates (difference in proportion of people providing the outcomes in the intervention group and comparator group) were calculated. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled proportions. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane ´Risk of Bias tool 2.0´ for individual studies, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people were included. The pooled prevalence for recruitment rate was 75% (95%CI 66 to 84%). The pooled prevalence for retention rate was 90% (95%CI 86 to 94%) at the end of the intervention (12 weeks; interquartile range (IQR) (12 to 12)). Meta-regression analyses showed that increasing age and including a higher proportion of people with hypertension was associated with lower retention rates. Retention rates did not differ between the intervention and comparator groups. The overall quality of the evidence was deemed very low. CONCLUSION: Three in four eligible people with multimorbidity were randomised to RCTs using exercise therapy, of which nine out of 10 provided end of treatment outcomes with no difference seen between the intervention and comparison groups. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to large differences between the included studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov CRD42020161329 . Registered on 28 April 2020.

Aquatic exercise for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a chronic disease characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and limitation of movement. At present, no cure is available. Thus only treatment of the person's symptoms and treatment to prevent further development of the disease are possible. Clinical trials indicate that aquatic exercise may have advantages for people with osteoarthritis. This is an update of a published Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of aquatic exercise for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis, or both, compared to no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 28 April 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (from 1949), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Web of Science (from 1945). There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled clinical trials of aquatic exercise compared to a control group (e.g. usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) of participants with knee or hip osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We analysed the pooled results using standardized mean difference (SMD) values. MAIN RESULTS: Nine new trials met the inclusion criteria and we excluded two earlier included trials. Thus the number of participants increased from 800 to 1190 and the number of included trials increased from six to 13. Most participants were female (75%), with an average age of 68 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. Osteoarthritis duration was 6.7 years, with a great variation of the included participants. The mean aquatic exercise duration was 12 weeks. We found 12 trials at low to unclear risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. They showed that aquatic exercise caused a small short term improvement compared to control in pain (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; 12 trials, 1076 participants) and disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.17; 12 trials, 1059 participants). Ten trials showed a small effect on quality of life (QoL) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 10 trials, 971 participants). These effects on pain and disability correspond to a five point lower (95% CI three to eight points lower) score on mean pain and mean disability compared to the control group (scale 0 to 100), and a seven point higher (95% CI 0 to 13 points higher) score on mean QoL compared with control group (scale 0 to 100). No included trials performed a radiographic evaluation. No serious adverse events were reported in the included trials with relation to aquatic exercise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that aquatic exercise may have small, short-term, and clinically relevant effects on patient-reported pain, disability, and QoL in people with knee and hip OA. The conclusions of this review update does not change those of the previous published version of this Cochrane review.